UC-NRLF 


SB    M7    25E 


DOCUMENTS 
OEPT. 


STATE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 


II 

cwv 


CONVENTION 


TO 


REVISE  THE  CONSTITUTION 


DECEMBER,  1QO2. 


CONCORD,  N.  H.: 

TTbe  *Kumfor&  press. 
1903. 


iJCCUMENW 

Dtp?. 


JOURNAL 

OF  THE 

CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION 

OK    19O2. 


CONCORD,  N.  H.,  December  2,  1902. 

The  delegates  of  the  Constitutional  Convention  assembled 
in  the  hall  of  the  House  of  Eepresentatives  on  Tuesday,  De- 
cember 2,  1902,  at  11  o'clock  a.  m.,  and  were  called  to  order 
by  the  Hon.  Isaac  N.  Blodgett  of  Franklin. 

On  motion  of  James  F.  Briggs  of  Manchester,  Henry  0. 
Kent  of  Lancaster  was  chosen  temporary  chairman. 

Messrs.  Sanborn  of  Franklin  and  Briggs  of  Manchester  were 
chosen  a  committee  to  escort  the  temporary  presiding  officer 
to  the  chair. 

On  assuming  the  chair,  Mr.  Kent  addressed  the  Conven- 
tion as  follows: 

There  can  no  higher  duty  come  to  citizens  of  a  state  than 
to  be  charged  by  its  people  with  examination  and  revision  of 
its  organic  law — that  instrument  that  has  unified  government 
and  the  elements  of  prosperity;  that  has  voiced  the  stern  in- 
tegrity, reverence  of  Deity,  and  crowding  energy  that  from 
feeble  beginnings  have  developed  a  prosperous  common- 
wealth. 


M164838 


4        JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

It  is  an  instrument  to  be  approached  almost  with  reverence. 
So  abounding  is  it  in  the  evidences,  the  incentives,  the  experi- 
ences of  the  past,  that  it  is  to  be  considered  in  those  points 
only,  wherein  changes  in  the  world's  progress  or  developing 
demands,  require  restriction  or  expansion  at  any  point,  with 
wise  care  and  a  sense  of  profound  responsibility. 

Its  consideration  brings  to  us  faces  and  memories  from  the 
past.  Patriots  and  soldiers  of  the  early  days  of  privation, 
daring  and  elemental  heroism  look  down  upon  us  from  these 
walls.  Memories  of  noble  and  worthy  events  come  to  us 
adown  the  aisles  of  memory — from  Louisbourg,  Bunker  Hill, 
Bennington,  Yorktown,  Lundy's  Lane,  Chapultepec,  Gettys- 
burg, and  from  the  isles  of  the  ocean. 

We  love  our  state!  We  are  here  to  do  her  service.  Her 
mountains,  her  valleys,  her  clear  air  and  alternations  of  shade 
and  sun  upon  her  hillsides  or  lakes — they  are  ours  in  memory 
and  fond  recollection,  wherever  we  are  dispersed.  The  old 
New  Hampshire  character,  too,  abides  with  us.  The  stern, 
self-denying,  persistent,  patient,  helpful  lives,  revering  Deity 
and  sustaining  law  and  order,  have  found  the  commonwealth 
expanding  into  the  life  of  the  federal  republic,  embracing  an 
empire  of  freemen,  existing  by  right  for  the  advancement, 
elevation,  comfort,  and  content  of  humanity. 

To  have  in  charge  the  original  charter  and  promise  of  this 
result  is  no  light  or  unmeaning  formalism.  Hasty  action 
may  strike  at  the  root  of  fundamental  truths;  untoward  re- 
sults will  follow  superficial  conclusions. 

It  is  natural  that  her  people  should  se.nd  up  to  such  a 
grand  council  as  is  here  assembled,  from  among  her  best  and 
wisest  sons.  Not  young  men  chiefly,  in  the  heyday  of  youth, 
with  all  the  world  before  them  from  which  to  choose  their 
course;  but  grave  men,  who  have  borne  the  burden  of  life's 
affairs,  who  have  seen  illusions  fade  before  experiment,  who 
desire  of  all  things  to  preserve  as  intact  as  changes  of  environ- 
ment will  permit,  that  grand  charter  of  our  liberties  under 
which  our  present  well  being  has  been  secured. 

I  do  not  think  it  invidious  to  any  prior  convention  to  sug- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  2,  1902.  5 

gest  that  probably  on  no  occasion  since  our  fathers  assembled 
at  the  feeble  colonial  capitals  under  the  shadow  of  the  forests 
surrounding  them  for  purposes  of  statecraft,  was  there  ever  a 
better  representation  of  her  sons,  strong  in  brain  and  brawn, 
gathered  to  consider  great  political  truths  than  that  which  the 
old  commonwealth  has  sent  up  for  the  present  purpose  to 
this  assembly. 

There  are  here  representatives  of  the  majesty  of  law,  from 
the  pulpit,  the  press,  the  centres  of  trade,  all  men  proven  in 
affairs,  gathered  with  steady  purpose  to  hear  thoughtfully, 
weigh  prudently  and  act  carefully  in  all  things  concerning 
the  honor,  the  prosperity,  and  the  content  of  the  state. 

It  is  not  for  me  to  discuss  pending  legislation;  in  due 
course,  through  regular  channels,  all  matters  pertinent  to 
this  gathering  will  be  presented,  discussed,  decided.  It  is 
mine  to  direct  your  formal  action  until  the  permanent  organ- 
ization of  this  convention  shall  have  been  reached  and  then 
to  give  way  to  your  chosen  agents. 

It  only  remains  to  me  as  a  member  of  the  historic  political 
party  to  which  I  have  the  honor  to  belong,  to  thank  the  ma- 
jority party  of  this  non-partisan  Convention  for  its  wise  and 
generous  action  in  according  to  that  minority  the  courtesies 
so  generously  extended  on  this  occasion,  and  to  acknowledge 
to  the  members  of  my  own  party,  my  abiding  appreciation  of 
the  continued  confidence  and  regard  which  has  placed  me  in 
this  present  place  of  responsibility;  perhaps  the  crowning 
honor  of  my  career,  in  behalf  of  the  Democracy  of  New 
Hampshire. 

I  should  be  false  to  my  impulses  and  an  essential  part  of 
the  pleasure  of  this  hour  did  I  not  acknowledge  the  courte- 
sies extended  me  on  all  sides  on  this  occasion,  alike  from  old- 
time  veterans  in  the  control  of  the  state,  and  from  oncoming 
active  participants  who  are  later  to  direct  her  affairs.  Es- 
pecially do  I  recognize  the  introduction  accorded  me  by  my 
old-time  friend,  one  of  the  ablest  of  our  sons  upon  a  bench 
always  honored,  and  one  of  our  first  citizens  during  a  long 
and  useful  life,  who  voluntarily  retires  as  chief  justice  to  en- 


6        JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

joy  in  private  life  the  honors  so  freely  accorded  him — Isaac 
N.  Blodgett. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention:  Again  I  thank  you  and  am 
ready  to  proceed  to  business. 

On  motion  of  Benjamin  A.  Kimball  of  Concord,  James  E. 
Dodge  of  Manchester  was  chosen  temporary  secretary. 

On  motion  of  Stephen  S.  Jewett  of  Laconia, — 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  consisting  of  two  delegates  from 
each  county  be  appointed  by  the  chair  to  inquire  who  are 
elected  delegates  to  this  Convention. 

The  following  named  gentlemen  were  appointed  as  such 
committee: 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY. 

True  L.  Norris  of  Portsmouth. 
William  H.  C.  Follansby  of  Exeter. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY. 

Charles  H.  Morang  of  Dover. 
George  W.  Nutter  of  Eollinsford. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY. 

Stephen  S.  Jewett  of  Laconia. 
Edwin  C.  Lewin  of  Laconia. 

CARROLL  COUNTY. 

James  L.  Gibson  of  Conway. 
Henry  F.  Dorr  of  Sandwich. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY. 

Maitland  C.  Lamprey  of  Concord. 
George  W.  Stone  of  Andover. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  2,  1902.  7 

HILLSBOROUGH   COUNTY, 

Edward  E.  Parker  of  Nashua. 
Herbert  0.  Hadley  of  Temple. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY. 

Amos  J.  Blake  of  Fitzwilliam. 
Joseph  Madden  of  Keene. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY. 

Jesse  M.  Barton  of  Newport. 
Herbert  A.  Holmes  of  Langdon. 

GRAFTON  COUNTY. 

Henry  C.  Carbee  of  Bath. 
Calvin  T.  Shute  of  Wentworth. 

COOS  COUNTY. 

Alfred  R.  Evans  of  Gorham. 
Jason  H.  Dudley  of  Colebrook. 

On  motion  of  John  W.  Sanborn  of  Wakefield, — 

Resolved,  That  when  this  Convention  adjourns,  it  adjourn 
to  meet  this  afternoon  at  2  o'clock. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester, — 

Resolved,  That  the  temporary  secretary  request  the  secre- 
tary of  state  to  furnish  this  Convention  with  450  copies  of 
the  published  proceedings  of  the  Constitutional  Convention 
of  1889,  one  copy  for  each  member  of  this  Convention  and 
its  officers. 

Mr.  Foster  of  Concord  presented  the  petition  of  Felix  G. 
Harbor  and  others,  contesting  the  right  of  Herman  Greager 
and  others  to  seats  as  delegates. 


8        JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia,  the  petition  was  laid 
on  the  table. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sanborn  of  Wakefield,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 

AFTEENOOK 

The  Convention  met  at  2  o'clock,  according  to  adjourn- 
ment. 

The  chair  called  upon  the  Eev.  David  H.  Evans  of  New 
Hampton  to  open  the  Convention  with  prayer. 

Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia,  for  the  Committee  on  Credentials, 
reported  that  prima  facie  evidence  had  been  presented  to  them 
of  the  election  of  the  following  named  persons  as  delegates  to 
this  Convention: 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY. 

Atkinson,  Elmer  E.  Conley. 

Auburn,  Henry  C.  Sanborn. 

Brentwood,  Ephraim  G.  Flanders. 

Candia,  George  E.  Eaton. 

Chester,  Charles  H.  Knowles. 

Danville,  Eugene  F.  Kimball. 

Deerfield,  John  M.  Kelsey. 

Derry,  Walter  E.  Sanders,  Charles  F.  Gillispie,  Charles  W. 
Abbott. 

East  Kingston,  Frank  E.  Morrill. 

Exeter,  Edwin  G.  Eastman,  William  H.  C.  Follansby,  Ar- 
thur 0.  Fuller,  Albert  S.  Wetherell. 

Epping,  John  Leddy. 

Fremont,  Lincoln  F.  Hooke. 

Greenland,  John  S.  H.  Frink. 

Hampstead,  John  C.  Sanborn. 

Hampton,  John  W.  Towle. 

Hampton  Falls,  Benjamin  F.  Weare. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  2,  1902.  9 

Kensington,  Weare  N.  Shaw. 

Kingston,  Amos  C.  Chase. 

Londonderry,  Eosecrans  W.  Pillsbury. 

Newcastle,  no  choice. 

Newfields,  Christopher  A.  Pollard. 

Newington,  Frederic  W.  de  Rochemont. 

Newmarket,  Harrison  G.  Burley,  John  Walkei. 

Newton,  Daniel  F.  Battles. 

North  Hampton,  David  H.  Evans. 

Northwood,  Charles  F.  Gate. 

Nottingham,  James  H.  Kelsey. 

Plaistow,  Daniel  M.  Peaslee. 

Portsmouth: 

Ward  1,  Samuel  W.  Emery,  Guy  E.  Corey. 

Ward  2,  Simon  P.  Emery,  Alfred  F.  Howard,  True  L. 
Norris. 

Ward  3,  Clarence  H.  Paul,  Samuel  F.  Ham. 

Ward  4,  Edward  H.  Adams. 

Ward  5,  William  A.  A.  Cullen. 
Raymond,  James  M.  Healey. 
Eye,  Horace  Sawyer. 

Salem,  Wallace  W.  Cole,  Benjamin  E.  Wheeler. 
Sandown,  Horace  T.  Grover. 
Seabrook,  John  W.  Locke. 
South  Hampton,  Benjamin  E.  Jewell. 
Stratham,  Joseph  C.  A.  Wingate. 
Windham,  George  H.  Clark. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY. 

Barrington,  Alphonzo  B.  Locke. 
Dover: 

Ward  1,  George  I.  Leighton,  Charles  E.  Morrison. 
Ward  2,  Charles  T.  Moulton,  William  H.  Eoberts,  Burn- 
ham  Hanson. 

Ward  3,  John  H.  Nealley,  Dwight  Hall. 
Ward  4,  Charles  H.  Morang,  Channing  Folsom,  John  H. 

Nute. 
Ward  5,  Patrick  W.  Murphy. 


10      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Durham,  Daniel  Chesley. 

Farmington,  Henry  C.  Nutter,  Edward  T.  Willson. 

Lee,  John  W.  Webb. 

Madbury,  Fred  E.  Gerrish. 

Middleton,  James  D.  Moore. 

Milton,  Bard  B.  Plummer. 

New  Durham,  Horatio  G.  Chamberlin. 

Eochester: 

Ward  1,  Andrew  E.  Nute. 

Ward  2,  George  P.  Furbush. 

Ward  3,  Stephen  C.  Meader. 

Ward  4,  George  H.  Springfield,  Gaspard  A.  Gelinas. 

Ward  5,  George  E.  Cochrane. 

Ward  6,  William  T.  Gunnison. 
Eollinsford,  George  W.  Nutter. 
Somersworth: 

Ward  1,  James  A.  Edgerly. 

Ward  2,  Joseph  Libby. 

Ward  3,  James  A.  Locke. 

Ward  4,  Michael  J.  Leary,  Clement  Eoy. 

Ward  5,  Oliver  Morin. 
Strafford,  Frank  H.  Hall. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY. 

Alton,  George  H.  Demeritt. 
Barnstead,  Horace  N.  Colbath. 
Belmont,  Fred  E.  Bryar. 
Center  Harbor,  Allan  C.  Clark. 
Gilford,  James  E.  Morrill. 
Gilmanton,   Thomas   Cogswell. 
Laconia: 

Ward  1,  Charles  L.  Pulsifer,  Edwin  D.  Ward. 

Ward  2,  Stephen  S.  Jewett,  Horace  W.  Gorrell. 

Ward  3,  John  T.  Busiel. 

Ward  4,  Edwin  P.  Thompson,  Edwin  C.  Lewis. 
Meredith,  George  F.  Smith. 
New  Hampton,  Kenrick  W.  Smith. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  2,  1902.  11 

Sanbornton,  James  E.  Knox. 

Tilton,  Charles  C.  Rogers,  William  B.  Fellows. 

CARROLL  COUNTY. 

Albany,  Archie  Nickerson. 
Bartlett,  Henry  M.  Hideout. 
Brookfield,  Dudley  C.  Colman. 
Chatham,  William  Spencer. 

Conway,  Sewell  M.  Hobson,  James  L.  Gibson,  Joel  E.  Mor- 
rill. 

Eaton,  Luther  E.  Dearborn. 

Effingham,  Horace  W.  Harmon. 

Freedom,  Arthur  P.  Merrow. 

Hart's  Location,  Merville  B.  Murch. 

Jackson,  Jonathan  Meserve. 

Madison,  Samuel  J.  Gilman. 

Moultonborough,  Andrew  J.  Goodwin. 

Ossipee,  Levi  W.  Brown. 

Sandwich,  Henry  F.  Dorr. 

Tamworth,  Horace  A.  Page. 

Tuftonborough,  John  D.  Morrison. 

Wakefield,  John  W.  Sanborn. 

Wolfeborough,  Stephen  W.  Clow,  Fred  E.  Hersey. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY. 

Allenstown,  Frank  E.  Blodgett. 
Andover,  George  W.  Stone. 
Boscawen,  Willis  G.  Buxton. 
Bow,  Henry  M.  Baker. 
Bradford,  John  E.  French. 
Canterbury,  James  Frame. 
Chichester,  Jeremy  L.  Sanborn. 
Concord: 

Ward  1,  David  F,  Dudley,  Charles  E.  Foote. 

Ward  2,  Fales  P.  Virgin. 

Ward  3,  Abijah  Hollis. 

Ward  4,  Frank  S.  Streeter,  James  0.  Lyford,  John  M. 
Mitchell. 


12      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Ward  5,  Edward  C.  Mies,  William  A.  Foster. 

Ward  6,  Benjamin  A.  Kimball,  Reuben  E.  Walker,  De- 
Witt  C.  Howe. 

Ward  7,  Moses  T.  Whittier,  Maitland  C.  Lamprey,  Hor- 
ace L.  Ingalls. 

Ward  8,  William  E.  Chandler. 

Ward  9,  Michael  Casey,  John  Jordan. 
Danbury,  John  V.  Ford. 
Dunbarton,  Horace  Caldwell. 
Epsom,  John  H.  Dolbeer. 
Franklin: 

Ward  1,  Isaac  K  Blodgett. 

Ward  2,  Edward  B.  S.  Sanborn,  George  R.  Stone. 

Ward  3,  Edward  G.  Leach,  Omar  A.  Towne. 
Henniker,  Charles  A.  Wilkins. 
Hill,  Royal  L.  Wilson. 
Hooksett,  Eugene  S.  Head. 
Hopkinton,  George  M.  Putnam. 
Loudon,  Jeremiah  A.  Clough. 
Newbury,  George  J.  Messer. 
New  London,  Jacob  H.  Todd. 
Northfield,  Otis  C.  Wyatt. 

Pembroke,  Jacob  E.   Chickering,  Edmund  E.  Truesdell, 
George  E.  Miller. 

Pittsfield,  Frank  P.  Greene,  Edward  K.  Webster. 
Salisbury,  Edward  N".  Sawyer. 
Sutton,  no  choice — voted  not  to  send. 
Warner,  Arthur  Thompson. 
Webster,  Frank  A.  Lang. 
Wilmot,  no  choice. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY. 

Amherst,  Eugene  C.  Hubbard. 
Antrim,  Franklin  G.  Warner. 
Bedford,  Gordon  Woodbury. 
Bennington,  Charles  H.  Kimball. 
Brookline,  Orville  D.  Fessenden. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  2,  1902.  13 

Deering,  William  F.  Whitaker. 

Francestown,  George  E.  Dowries. 

Goffstown,  George  W.  Colby,  David  A.  Paige. 

Greenfield,  George  S.  Peavey. 

Greenville,  Stephen  H.  Bacon. 

Hancock,  George  H.  Fogg. 

Hillsborough,  John  B.  Smith,  Samuel  W.  Holman. 

Hollis,  Marcelhis  J.  Powers. 

Hudson,  George  W.  Clyde. 

Litchfield,  Jonathan  A.  Marsh. 

Lyndeborough,  Walter  S.  Tarbell. 

Manchester: 

Ward  1,  Elliot  C.  Lambert,  Rufus  Wilkinson,  Jacob  J. 

Abbott. 
Ward  2,  James  F.  Briggs,  David  Cross,  Nathan  P.  Hunt, 

Oliver  B.  Green,  James  E.  Dodge. 

Ward  3,  Henry  W.  Boutwell,  Cyrus  H.  Little,  Clarence 
E.  Rose,  Edwin  F.  Jones,  Edwin  R.  Robinson,  Joseph 
0.  Tremblay. 

Ward  4,  Harry  T.  Lord,  George  C.  Gilmore,  Henry  A. 
Farrington,  Warren  Harvey,  Bushrod  W.  Hill,  Albert 
J.  Precourt. 

Ward  5,  Joseph  M.  McDonough,  Michael  Tonery,  Will- 
iam J.  Starr,  Timothy  E.  Horan,  William  F.  Glancy, 
Michael  R.  Sullivan,  Dennis  F.  Griffin,  Henry  Jen- 
nings. 
Ward  6,  Fred  T.  Irwin,  George  I.  McAllister,  Joseph 

Quirin,  Eugene  E.  Hildreth. 
Ward  7,  Henry  W.  Allen. 
Ward  8,  Frank  0.  Clement,  John  C.  Littlefield,  John  K. 

McQuesten,  William  McElroy,  Edward  J.  Powers. 
Ward  9,  Herman  Greager,  Joseph  Richer,  Frank  T.  Pro- 
vost, Joseph  G.  Plante,  Eugene  Quirin,  Moise  Guerin, 
Joseph  A.  Boivin. 

Ward  10,  James  M.  Hall,  Albert  Nettle,  Joseph  F.  Trin- 
ity, Nelson  W.  Paige. 
Mason,  Hermon  Whitaker. 


14      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Merrimack,  Francis  A.  Gordon. 

Milford,  Carl  E.  Knight,  William  B.  Eotch,  George  A.  Wor- 
cester. 

Mont  Vernon,  Charles  H.  Eaymond. 
Nashua: 

Ward  1,  Charles  J.  Hamblett,  John  E.  Spring. 

Ward  2,  Joseph  L.  Clough,  Walter  C.  Harriman. 

Ward  3,  Edward  H.  Everett,  John  J.  Flood,  Henri  T. 
Ledoux. 

Ward  4,  Edward  E.  Parker. 

Ward  5,  Stephen  L.  Hallinan. 

Ward  6,  Edward  H.  Wason. 

Ward  7,  Arthur  K.  Woodbury,  Clayton  B.  Proctor,  Fred- 
eric D.  Eunnells. 

Ward  8,  William  J.  McKay,  Albert  Shedd,  William  J. 
Flather. 

Ward  9,  Thomas  Earley,  Jr.,  Joseph  T.  Slattery,  Leon 

Desmarais,  Michael  McGlynn. 
New  Boston,  Lendell  Dodge. 
New  Ipswich,  Edwin  F.  Blanchard. 
Pelham,  Charles  L.  Seavey. 

Peterborough,  Mortier  L.  Morrison,  Charles  Scott. 
Sharon,  Milton  A.  Eichardson. 
Temple,  Herbert  0.  Hadley. 
Weare,  George  Simons. 
Wilton,  George  E.  Bales. 
Windsor,  Joseph  C.  Chapman. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY. 

Alstead,  Charles  H.  Cooke. 

Chesterfield,  George  F.  Amidon. 

Dublin,  Henry  D.  Learned. 

Fitzwilliam,  Amos  J.  Blake. 

Gilsum,  John  S.  Collins. 

Harrisville,  Frank  C.  Farwell. 

Hinsdale,  Fred  A.  Buckley,  Willis  D.  Stearns. 

Jaffrey,  Joel  H.  Poole,  Albert  Annett. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  2,  1902.  15 

Keene: 

Ward  1,  James  S.  Taft,  Adolph  W.  Pressler. 

Ward  2,  Charles  Wright,  3d,  Liberty  W.  Foskett. 

Ward  3,  William  C.  Hall,  Hiram  F.  Newell. 

Ward  4,  Clement  J.  Woodward. 

Ward  5,  Joseph  Madden. 
Marlborough,  Clinton  Collins. 
Marlow,  Rockwell  F.  Craig. 
Nelson,  George  W.  Osgood. 
Richmond,  Lewis  R.  Cass. 
Rlndge,  Warren  W.  Emory. 
Roxbury,  Charles  W.  Buckminster. 
Stoddard,  Cummings  B.  McClure. 
Sullivan,  Daniel  W.  Rugg. 
Surry,  Stephen  H.  Clement. 
Swanzey,  Auburn  J.  Day. 
Troy,  Melvin  T.  Stone. 

Walpole,  Frank  A.  Spaulding,  William  H.  Kiniry. 
Westmoreland,  Edwin  J.  Goodnow. 
Winchester,  Carlos  C.  Davis,  George  W.  Pierce. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY. 

Acworth,  Abraham  M.  Mitchell. 

Charlestown,  Lyman  Brooks. 

Claremont,  Edward  J.  Tenney,  George  T.  Stockwell,  Os- 
mon  B.  Way,  George  P.  Rossiter,  Ira  G.  Colby. 

Cornish,  George  E.  Fairbanks. 

Croydon,   Daniel  Ide. 

Goshen,  Frank  L.  Hanson. 

Grantham,  Moses  P.  Burpee. 

Langdon,  Herbert  A.  Holmes. 

Lempster,  Loren  A.  Noyes. 

Newport,  Arthur  C.  Bradley,  Jesse  M.  Barton,  Seth  M. 
Richards. 

Plainfield,  Robert  R.  Penniman. 

Springfield,  Joseph  L.  Brown. 

Sunapee,  George  H.  Bartlett. 

Unity,  Charles  A.  Newton. 

Washington,  Willie  D.  Brockway. 


16       JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

GRAFTON  COUNTY. 

Alexandria,  Alpheus  S.  Bucklin. 

Ashland,  Henry  C.  Dearborn. 

Bath,  Henry  C.  Carbee. 

Benton,  Lebina  H.  Parker. 

Bethlehem,  Henry  A.  Hildreth. 

Bridgewater,  Henry  H.  Morrill. 

Bristol,  Ira  A.  Chase. 

Campton,  Charles  W.  Pulsifer. 

Canaan,  Warren  B.  Richardson. 

Dorchester,  Herbert  H.  Ashley. 

Easton,  Charles  A.  Young. 

Ellsworth,  Bert  H.  Avery. 

Enfield,  Henry  Cumings,  John  Dresser. 

Franconia,  Wilbur  F.  Parker. 

Grafton,  Joseph  E.  Walker. 

Groton,  Daniel  Kidder. 

Hanover,  Simon  Ward,  James  F.  Colby. 

Haverhill,  Tyler  Westgate,  Scott  Sloane,  Edwin  B.  Pike. 

Hebron,  Edward  M.  Jewell. 

Holderness,  Robert  L.  Flanders. 

Landaff,  Van  B.  Glazier. 

Lebanon,  Charles  A.  Dole,  Charles  B.  Drake,  Jesse  E. 
Dewey,  Clarence  E.  Hibbard. 

Lincoln,  James  E.  Henry. 

Lisbon,  Augustus  A.  Woolson,  George  F.  Morris. 

Littleton,  Edgar  Aldrich,  Henry  F.  Green,  Harry  M, 
Morse. 

Lyman,  Willard  A.  Stoddard. 

Lyme,  George  Melvin. 

Monroe,  Alexander  Warden. 

Orange,  John  H.  French. 

Orford,  George  W.  Lamprey. 

Piermont,  Edward  Ford. 

Plymouth,  Frank  W.  Russell,  Alvin  F.  Wentworth. 

Rumney,  Charles  C.  Craig. 

Thornton,  Marshall  A.  Bowles. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  2,  1902.  17 

Warren,  William  R.  Park,  Jr. 
Waterville,  George  H.  Green. 
Wentworth,  Calvin  T.  Shute. 
Woodstock,  Elmer  E.  Woodbury. 

COOS  COUNTY. 
Berlin: 

Ward  1,  Joseph  H.  Wight,  John  D.  Moffett,  William  H. 
Paine. 

Ward  2,  Louis  M.  Laplante,  George  F.  Rich,  Daniel  J. 
Daley. 

Ward  3,  James  A.  Boudreau,  Charles  A.  Murray. 
Carroll,  Charles  S.  Miles. 
Clarksville,  Willis  E.  Young. 
Colebrook,  Jason  H.  Dudley,  Thomas  F.  Johnson. 
Columbia,  Charles  C.  Titus. 
Dalton,  Frank  Britton. 
Dummer,  Adam  W.  Wight. 
Errol,  Remember  B.  Thurston. 
Gorham,  Alfred  R.  Evans. 
Jefferson,  George  W.  Crawford. 

Lancaster,  Irving  W.  Drew,  Henry  0.  Kent,  William  H. 
Hartley. 

Milan,  Leonard  K.  Phipps. 

Northumberland,  Napoleon  B.  Perkins,  George  W.  Mc- 
Kellips. 

Pittsburg,  Harvey  Augustus  Blanchard. 

Randolph,  Laban  M.  Watson. 

Shelburne,  Charles  E.  Philbrook. 

Stark,  William  T.  Pike. 

Stewartstown,  Leon  D.  Ripley. 

Stratford,  Havilah  B.  Hinman. 

Whitefield,  David  M.  Aldrich,  William  F.  Dodge. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  adopted. 

The  chair  appointed  as  tellers  to  distribute  and  collect  bal- 
lots the  following  named  gentlemen: 
2 


18       JOUBNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Messrs.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry,  Pressler  of  Keene,  Lit- 
tle of  Manchester,  Leighton  of  Dover,  and  Fairbanks  of  Cor- 
nish. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord,  proceeded  to  bal- 
lot for  president  of  the  Convention. 

The  chair  appointed  as  tellers  to  sort  and  count  the  bal- 
lots, Messrs.  Bales  of  Wilton,  Jones  of  Manchester,  and  Sloane 
of  Haverhill. 

The  ballot  for  president  resulted  as  follows: 

Whole  number  of  ballots  cast 398 

Necessary  to  a  choice 200 

Edgar  Aldrich 31 

David  Cross 127 

Frank  S.  Streeter 240 

and  Frank  S.  Streeter,  having  received  a  majority  of  all  the 
ballots  cast,  was  declared  elected  President  of  the  Convention. 

Messrs.  Aldrich  of  Littleton  and  Cross  of  Manchester  were 
appointed  to  conduct  the  president-elect  to  the  chair. 

On  assuming  the  chair  Mr.  Streeter  addressed  the  Conven- 
tion as  follows: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention: 

For  such  an  expression  of  confidence  and  approbation  by 
this  representative  body  of  my  fellow-citizens,  I  am  sincerely 
grateful. 

You  have  come  here  to  discuss  and  determine  what  changes 
in  the  Constitution  seem  desirable  or  necessary,  and  you  will 
subinit  your  conclusions  to  the  people  for  final  action. 

The  ripe  experience  and  eminent  public  service  of  many  of 
you,  and  the  high  character  and  ability  of  all  are  a  sufficient 
guaranty  that  your  work  will  be  well  and  promptly  done, 
without  prejudice  or  partisanship. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  2,  1902.  19 

It  is  the  duty  of  the  chair  faithfully  to  administer  the  will 
of  the  Convention  and,  to  that  end,  he  asks  the  kindly  sup- 
port and  cooperation  of  every  member. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chase  of  Bristol,  proceeded  to  ballot  for 
secretary  of  the  Convention. 

The  President  appointed  as  tellers  the  same  gentlemen  who 
served  before. 

The  ballot  for  secretary  resulted  as  follows: 

Whole  number  of  ballots  cast 382 

Necessary  to  a  choice , 192 

George  "W.  Fowler 58 

James  R.   Jackson 93 

Thomas  H.  Madigan,  Jr 231 

and  Thomas  H.  Madigan,  Jr.,  having  received  a  majority  of 
all  the  ballots  cast,  was  declared  elected  secretary  of  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  Madigan  appeared  and  qualified  before  Judge  Aldrich. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Everett  of  Nashua,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  twenty,  to  consist  of  two 
from  each  county,  be  appointed  by  the  chair  to  select  and 
report  to  the  Convention  the  names  of  persons  to  fill  the 
offices  of  assistant  secretary,  sergeant-at-arms,  chaplain,  three 
doorkeepers,  and  a  warden  of  the  cloak-room. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  gentlemen  as  such 
committee: 

Messrs.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry,  Norris  of  Portsmouth, 
Moulton  of  Dover,  Locke  of  Barrington,  Demeritt  of  Alton, 
Lewis  of  Laconia,  Brown  of  Ossipee,  Merrow  of  Freedom, 
Leach  of  Franklin,  Clough  of  Loudon,  Hamblett  of  Nashua, 


20       JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Starr  of  Manchester,  Pressler  of  Keene,  Collins  of  Marl- 
borough,  Tenney  of  Claremont,  Brockway  of  Washington, 
Greene  of  Littleton,  Wentworth  of  Plymouth,  Johnson  of 
Colebrook,  Aldrich  of  Whitefield. 

Mr.  Blake  of  Fitzwilliam  offered  the  following  resolution, 
which,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  was  laid  on  the  table: 

Resolvedy  That  the  rules  of  the  Constitutional  Convention 
of  1889  be  adopted  as  the  rules  of  this  Convention,  until 
otherwise  ordered. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  the  following  resolution 
was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  ten,  one  from  each  county, 
be  appointed  by  the  chair  to  report  rules  for  the  government 
of  the  Convention,  and  recommend  methods  of  procedure, 
and  until  the  report  of  this  committee  shall  have  been  re- 
turned the  rules  of  1889  shall  stand. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  gentlemen  as  such 
committee: 

Messrs.  Baker  of  Bow,  Eastman  of  Exeter,  Cochrane  of 
Rochester,  Jewett  of  Laconia,  Morrill  of  Conway,  Little  of 
Manchester,  Madden  of  Keene,  Colby  of  Claremont,  Woolson 
of  Lisbon,  Dudley  of  Colebrook. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua, — 

Resolved,  That  the  President  be  authorized  to  appoint  three 
pages,  tellers  for  each  division,  chaplain,  and  warden  of  the 
cloak-room. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Howard  of  Portsmouth,  the  following 
resolution  was  adopted,  by  a  division  vote  of  170  in  the  affirm- 
ative to  89  in  the  negative: 

Resolved,  That  the  secretary  be  directed  to  procure  daily 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  2,  1902.  21 

four  hundred  and  twenty-five  copies  of  The  Concord  Evening 
Monitor,  and  of  The  Manchester  Union,  for  the  use  of  the  offi- 
cers and  members  of  the  Convention.  . 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia,  the  petition  of  Felix 
G.  Harbor  and  others  was  taken  from  the  table  and  referred 
to  a  special  committee  of  ten,  one  from  each  county,  to  be 
appointed  by  the  President. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  gentlemen  as  such 
committee : 

Messrs.  Fuller  of  Exeter,  Eoberts  of  Dover,  Fellows  of  Til- 
ton,  Merrow  of  Freedom,  Foster  of  Concord,  McAllister  of 
Manchester,  Collins  of  Gilsum,  Barton  of  Newport,  Went- 
worth  of  Plymouth,  Eich  of  Berlin. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Bales  of  Wilton  the  following  resolution 
was  adopted: 

WHEREAS,  Philip  Eiley  of  ward  ten,  in  the  city  of  Man- 
chester, represents  that  he  is  legally  entitled  to  a  seat  as  dele- 
gate m  this  Convention  from  said  ward  and  contests  the  right 
of  Nelson  W.  Paige  to  a  seat  as  delegate  in  this  Convention. 
Be  it  moved  that  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  by  the  chair 
to  inspect  the  ballots  cast  for  the  said  Paige  and  the  said 
Eiley  and  report  their  finding  to  this  body. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  gentlemen  as  such 
committee: 

Messrs.  Parker  of  Nashua,  Bales  of  Wilton,  Taft  of  Keene, 
Glancey  of  Manchester,  Spring  of  Nashua. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Ward  of  Laconia,  the  following  resolu- 
tion was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  the  drawing  of  seats  be  made  a  special  order 
for  Wednesday,  December  3,  1902,  at  11  o'clock,  and  that 
the  method  followed  in  the  house  of  representatives  be 
adopted. 


22       JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Everett  of  Nashua  offered  a  resolution  entitled  "A 
resolution  to  take  God  out  of  the  Constitution/'  and  moved 
that  it  be  made  a  spe.cial  order  December  3,  at  11  o'clock  in 
the  forenoon. 

Said  resolution  being  as  follows: 

In  view  of  the  surprising  forethought  and  the  thoroughly 
demonstrated  good  judgment  of  the  framers  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States,  in  omitting  any  reference  to  a 
personal  God  and  believing  that  the  people  of  New  Hamp- 
shire have  reached  an  age  of  intelligence  when  it  is  safe  to 
discard  superstition  and  that  the  proper  place  to  start  should 
be  and  is  with  our  State  Constitution;  be  it  resolved,  that  the 
following  proposition  be  submitted  to  the  people: 

"  Shall  all  reference  or  inference  to  God,  Deity,  or  Protes- 
tant Christians  be  stricken  from  the  Constitution.1' 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Pressler  of  Keene,  the  resolution  was 
laid  on  the  table. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry,  for  Committee  on  Perma- 
nent Organization,  reported,  recommending  the  following 
named  gentlemen  for  the  several  offices,  and  the  report  was 
accepted  and  adopted: 

Assistant  secretary,  L.  Ashton  Thorpe  of  Manchester;  ser- 
geant-at-arms,  John  K.  Law  of  New  London;  chaplain,  Eev. 
Burton  W.  Lockhart'  of  Manchester;  doorkeepers,  Charles  "W. 
Torr  of  Dover,  George  W.  Allen  of  Stewartstown,  W.  W. 
Lovejoy  of  Littleton;  warden  of  cloak-room,  George  H. 
Brigham. 

The  committee  also  recommended  that  Harry  B.  Jackson 
of  Littleton  be  elected  page  to  the  President,  to  serve  during 
the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lord  of  Manchester,  this  recommenda- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  23 

tion  was  referred  to  a  committee  of  one,  consisting  of  the 
President. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester,  the  following 
resolution  was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  the  secretary  have  printed  an  alphabetical 
roll  of  members,,  for  the  use  of  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Corey  of  Portsmouth, — 

Resolved,  That  when  the  Convention  adjourns,  it  adjourn 
to  meet  to-morrow  at  10  o'clock. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Little  of  Manchester, — 

Resolved,  That  Fremont  E.  Shurtleff  of  Concord  be  ap- 
pointed official  stenographer  of  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Stockwell  of  Claremont,  the  following 
resolution  was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  until  otherwise  ordered,  the  hours  of  meet- 
ing of  the  Convention  be  10:30  o'clock  in  the  forenoon  and 
2  o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia, — 

Resolved,  That  the  President  be  added  to  the  Committee  on 
Eules. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1903. 

The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 
Prayer  was  offered  by  Eev.  David  H.  Evans  of  New  Hamp- 


ton. 


24      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Stockwell  of  Claremont,  the  rules  were 
so  far  suspended  that  the  reading  of  the  journal  was  dispensed 
with. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  following  resolution 
was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  the  President  shall  appoint  one  assistant 
warden  for  the  cloak-room. 

Under  the  general  resolution  adopted  Tuesday^  December 
2,  the  chair  announced  the  appointment  of  the  following 
named  gentlemen  as  pages: 

Walter  H.  Harriman  of  Nashua,  Harry  J.  Pelren  of  Con- 
cord, and  George  C.  Stone  of  Dover. 

Under  a  special  resolution  adopted  later,  the  chair  ap- 
pointed as  page  to  the  President,  Harry  Bingham  Jackson  of 
Littleton. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  for  the  Committee  on  Eules  and  Method 
of  Procedure,  submitted  the  following  report: 

1.  The  President  shall  take  the  chair  at  precisely  the  hour 
to  which  the  Convention  shall  have  adjourned,  shall  imme- 
diately call  the  members  to  order,  and  at  the  commencement 
of  each  day's  session  shall  cause  the  journal  of  the  preceding 
day  to  be  read.     He  shall  preserve  decorum  and  order,  and 
may  speak  on  points  of  order  in  preference  to  other  mem- 
bers, and  may  substitute  any  member  to  perform  the  duties 
of  the  chair,  such  substitution  not  to  extend  beyond  an  ad- 
journment. 

2.  A  majority  of  all  the  members  of  the  Convention  shall 
constitute  a  quorum. 

3.  All  committees  shall  be  appointed  by  the  President,  un- 
less  otherwise   directed  by  the   Convention;   and  the   first 
named  member  of  any  committee  appointed  by  the  President 
shall  be  chairman. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  25 

4.  No  person  but  the  members  and  officers  of  the  Conven- 
tion shall  be  admitted  within  the  chamber  unless  by  invi- 
tation of  the  President  or  order  of  the  Convention. 

5.  No  member  shall  speak  more  than  twice  to  the  same 
question  without  leave  of  the  Convention. 

6.  When  any  question  is  under  debate,  no  motion  shall  be 
received  but,  1st,  to  adjourn;  2d,  to  lay  on  the  table;  3d,  to 
postpone  to  a  day  certain;  4th,  to  commit;  5th,  to  amend — • 
which  several  motions  shall  take  precedence  in  the  order  in 
which  they  are  arranged.     Motions  to  adjourn  and  lay  on 
the  table  shall  be  decided  without  debate. 

7.  Any  member  may  call  for  a  division  of  the  question, 
when  the  sense  will  admit  of  it;  but  a  motion  to  strike  out 
and  insert  shall  not  be  divided. 

8.  A  motion  for  commitment,  until  it  is  decided,  shall  pre- 
cede all  amendments  to  the  main  question;  and  all  motions 
and  reports  may  be  committed  at  the  pleasure  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

9.  No  vote  shall  be  reconsidered  unless  the  motion  for  re- 
consideration be  made  by  a  member  who  voted  with  the  ma- 
jority. 

10.  Every  question  shall  be  decided  by  yeas   and  nays, 
whenever  a  demand  for  the  same  shall  be  made  and  sustained 
by  at  least  ten  members. 

11.  The  Convention  may  resolve  itself  into  a  Committee 
of  the  Whole  at  any  time  on  the  motion  of  a  member;  and,  in 
forming  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  the  President  shall  leave 
the  chair  and  appoint  a  chairman  to  preside  in  committee; 
and  the  rules  of  proceeding  in  Convention  shall  be  observed 
in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  except  the  rule  limiting  the 
times  of  speaking  and  the  rule  relating  to  calls  for  the  yeas 
and  nays. 

12.  After  the  journal  has  been  read  and  corrected,  the  or- 


26       JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

der  of  business  shall  be  as  follows:  First,  the  presentation 
of  resolutions  and  petitions;  second,  the  reports  of  commit- 
tees; third,  any  special  order  for  the  hour;  fourth,  the  unfin- 
ished business  of  the  preceding  day. 

13.  All  motions  and  resolutions  proposing  any  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  shall  be  offered  in  writing,  and  be  read 
by  the  secretary  for  the  information  of  the  Convention,  when, 
unless  rejected  or  otherwise  disposed  of,  shall  be  referred  to 
an  appropriate   committee,   who   shall   examine   and   report 
thereon  to  the  Convention,  with  such  recommendations  as 
they  may  deem  advisable.     No  proposition  for  an  amend- 
ment shall  be  received  after  Tuesday  of  the  second  week,  un- 
less by  unanimous  consent  of  the  Convention  or  upon  the 
recommendation  of  the  committee. 

14.  There  shall  be  appointed  by  the  President  five  com- 
mittees, consisting  of  twenty  members  each,  and  each  county 
shall  be  represented  thereon.     Said  committees  shall  be  on 
the  following  subjects,  viz.: 

(1)  On  Bill  of  Eights  and  executive  department. 

(2)  On  legislative  department. 

(3)  On  judicial  department. 

(4)  On  future  mode  of  amending  the  Constitution,  and 
other  proposed  amendments. 

(5)  On  time  and  mode  of  submitting  to  the  people  the 
amendments  agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

It  was  moved  by  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  that 
the  report  be  accepted  and  the  rules  adopted  as  the  rules  of 
the  Convention. 

The  President — Gentlemen,  you  have  heard  the  report  of 
the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Rules.  It  is  moved  that 
these  rules  as  read  be  adopted  as  the  rules  of  our  Convention. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  should  be  glad  if  the  chair- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  27 

man  of  the  committee  would  explain  to  us  in  what  respects 
these  rules  differ  from  the  rules  of  the  Convention  of  1889. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — There  are  very  few  changes  in  these 
rules. 

No.  2,  a  rule  in  regard  to  a  quorum,  is  inserted.  It  prob- 
ahly  was  not  absolutely  necessary  to  insert  that  rule,  as  under 
general  parliamentary  law  a  majority  of  all  the  members 
would  constitute  a  quorum,  but  it  was  thought  by  your  com- 
mittee advisable  to  have  it  incorporated  in  the  rules. 

The  other  resolutions  are  exactly  as  found  in  the  rules  of 
1889,  until  we  come  to  the  order  of  business.  In  1889  it 
read:  "After  the  journal  has  been  read  and  corrected,  the 
order  of  business  shall  be  as  follows:  First,  the  presentation 
of  resolutions  and  petitions;  second,  the  reports  of  commit- 
tees; third,  the  unfinished  business  of  the  preceding  day." 
Your  committee  recognized  that  there  might  be  a  conflict  of 
authority  at  this  point,  the  Convention  having  made  some 
special  order  of  the  day  and  hour  of  the  day,  so  the  commit- 
tee has  inserted  as  the  third  order,  "Any  special  order  for 
the  hour  as  unfinished  business."  That  is  the  only  change 
there.  There  is  no  change  in  the  order  in  which  the  resolu- 
tions are  to  be  presented,  namely,  they  must  be  in  writing, 
and  unless  they  are  rejected  or  otherwise  disposed  of  they 
shall  go  immediately  to  the  appropriate  committee. 

The  practice  in  1876  was  that  they  should  be  considered 
immediately  by  the  Convention  in  a  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
The  resolution  as  reported  does  not  prevent  that  method  of 
considering  the  questions.  If  the  Convention  so  elects,  un- 
der these  rules,  any  amendment  may  be  considered  imme- 
diately in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  So  it  does  not  seem 
to  your  committee  that  there  is  any  objection  on  account  of 
the  difference  upon  this  point  between  the  rules  of  1889  and 
the  rules  here  reported,  because  the  whole  matter  rests  in 
the  hands  of  the  Convention  itself. 

There  is  one  other  change.  That  is,  in  connection  with 
the  appointment  of  committees.  Tinder  the  old  system  the 


28      JOURNAL  OP  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

committees  consisted  of  twenty  members  each,  there  being 
two  from  each  county,  and  it  was  the  custom  that  there 
should  be  one  Eepublican  and  one  Democrat  from  each  coun- 
ty. We  are  laboring  under  some  disadvantage  in  that  con- 
nection in  this  Convention.  There  is  one  county  in  which 
there  are  only  two  Democrats;  one  in  which  there  are  only 
three;  and  one  in  which  there  are  only  five;  and  so  there 
would  not  be  Democrats  enough  to  go  around  among  these 
different  committees. 

Consequently,  your  committee  thought  it  well  to  leave  the 
matter  in  the  discretion  of  the  President,  where  the  Demo- 
crats may  rest  assured  that  they  will  be  fairly  treated. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  only  wished  the  chairman  of 
the  committee  to  make  it  plainly  understood  that  when  a 
proposition  is  made  for  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution, 
the  Convention,  if  it  chooses  to  do,  may  consider  the  propo- 
sition in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  as  was  done  in  the 
Conventions  of  1876  and  1889,  without  referring  it  to  a  com- 
mittee of  the  Convention.  If,  after  it  is  so  considered,  the 
Convention  wishes  it  sent  to  a  committee  they  can  do  so. 
They  can,  however,  if  they  choose,  adopt  the  amendment  or 
express  an  opinion  on  it  in  the  first  instance  and  send  it  to 
the  committee  afterwards.  That  is  as  I  understand  to  have 
been  the  practice  under  the  rules  of  1876  and  the  practice 
of  1889,  under  a  rule  substantially  like  the  one  here. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  I  think  if  I  have  not  succeeded  in  making  that 
point  plain  to  you,  the  gentleman  from  Concord  has.  The 
one  point  is,  that  if  the  Convention  does  not  reject  any  pro- 
posed amendment  or  it  is  not  otherwise  disposed  of,  then  it 
will  go  to  the  appropriate  committee  when  appointed,  but 
the  whole  matter  is  under  the  control  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — When  a  proposition  is  intro- 
duced it  is  competent  then  for  the  person  introducing  the 
amendment  to  move  to  have  it  referred  to  a  committee,  under 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  29 

this  rule,  or  the  house  can  take  it  up  and  consider  it  in  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — If  the  gentleman  will  pardon  me, 
let  me  inquire  if  an  amendment  is  offered  here  by  a  member, 
will  it  then  be  in  order,  under  the  rules,  for  him  to  proceed 
to  discuss  it  and  have  the  Convention  consider  it  unless  a  mo- 
tion is  made  to  refer  it  to  a  committee? 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — It  would  be  referred  to  a  committee  in 
the  absence  of  any  different  motion;  but  if  any  gentleman 
wishes  it  to  be  considered  by  the  Convention  in  a  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  it  can  be  done  upon  his  motion. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — As  I  understand  it,  when  a 
proposition  is  introduced  a  motion  is  made  to  refer  it  to  a 
committee. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — No;  under  the  rule  it  goes  as  a  matter 
of  course  to  the  committee,  unless  it  is  rejected  or  otherwise 
disposed  of.  A  motion  to  have  it  considered  by  the  Conven- 
tion at  once  must  be  an  affirmative  one. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — In  accordance  with  the  prac- 
tice heretofore  and  under  these  proposed  rules,  a  reference 
would  be  made  to  the  appropriate  committee,  unless  the  gen- 
tleman who  introduces  a  resolution  or  amendment  moves, 
when  he  presents  it,  that  the  Convention  consider  it  in  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  at  some  fixed  time.  If  he  does  not 
make  that  motion,  then  as  a  matter  of  course  the  President 
will  refer  that  to  the  appropriate  committee. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  see  no  objection  to  that.  If 
there  is  no  motion  made  asking  to  have  an  amendment  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  fixing  the  time 
when  it  should  be  considered  by  such  committee,  of  course  it 


SO       JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ought  to  go  to  one  of  the  standing  committees  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Your  committee  has  reported  exactly 
what  was  the  rule  and  practice  of  the  Convention  in  1889. 

The  question  being  stated,  shall  the  rules  reported  from 
the  committee  be  adopted,  the  same  were  unanimously  adopt- 
ed as  the  rules  of  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter,  the  Committee  on  Con- 
tested Seats  in  the  ward  nine  delegation,  Manchester,  was 
allowed  to  sit  during  the  drawing  of  seats  and  the  secretary 
was  authorized  to  draw  seats  for  its  members. 

F.  E.  Shurtleff  of  Concord  was  qualified  as  official  steno- 
grapher for  the  Convention. 

The  chair  read  a  communication  from  The  People  and 
Patriot  company,  asking  permission  of  the  Convention  to  dis- 
tribute without  charge,  copies  of  The  Daily  Patriot  among 
the  delegates  each  evening. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Madden  of  Keene,  the  request  was 
granted. 

A  resolution  was  adopted  that  the  secretary  be  authorized 
to  draw  a  seat  for  the  Hon.  J.  S.  H.  Frink  of  Portsmouth, 
unavoidably  prevented  by  illness  from  being  present. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster,  it  was  ordered  that 
during  the  drawing  of  seats  the  secretary  be  instructed  to 
draw  seats  for  each  absent  member  as  his  name  was  called, 
including  the  members  of  the  Committee  on  the  Eecount  in 
ward  ten,  Manchester. 

Mr.  Shaw  of  Kensington  offered  the  following  resolution: 
Resolved,  That  Judge  Cross  and  Judge  Aldrich  be  per- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  31 

mitted  to  choose  their  seats  before  the  Convention  proceeds 
to  draw  for  seats. 

Amendments  were  offered  on  motion  of  various  delegates 
and  accepted  by  Mr.  Shaw  so  as  to  include  the  names  of  the 
following  gentlemen: 

Messrs.  Blodgett  of  Franklin,  Sanborn  of  Wakefield,  Kent 
of  Lancaster,  Cogswell  of  Gilmanton,  Briggs  of  Manchester, 
Lewis  of  Laconia,  Kimball  of  Concord,  and  Chandler  of  Con- 
cord. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  asked  that  his  name  be  with- 
drawn, but  Mr.  Parks  of  Warren,  who  made  the  motion,  re- 
iused  to  withdraw  Mr.  Chandler's  name. 

The  question  upon  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  as  amend- 
ed being  stated,  the  resolution  was  rejected. 

Mr.  Ward  of  Laconia  called  for  the  special  order  of  the  day, 
which  was  the  drawing  of  seats. 

The  Convention  having  attended  to  the  special  order,  on 
motion  of  Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed. 

AFTERNOON. 

The  Convention  niet  according  to  adjournment. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

By  virtue  of  a  resolution  passed  at  the  morning  session,  the 
chair  appointed  George  W.  Johnson  of  Concord  as  assistant 
warden  of  the  cloak-room. 

Mr.  Blake  of  Fitzwilliam  introduced  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

Resolved,  That  600  copies  of  the  rules  adopted  by  the  Con- 
vention be  printed  for  the  use  of  members. 


32      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
WMch  resolution  was  then  stated  and  passed. 

Mr.  Holman  of  Hillsborough  introduced  the  following 
resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  amended  by  adding  at 
the  end  of  article  five  of  part  second,  the  following:  "  And 
further,  full  power  and  authority  are  hereby  given  and  grant- 
ed to  the  said  general  court  to  impose  and  levy  assessments, 
rates  and  taxes  upon  the  estates  of  deceased  persons,  or  upon 
bequests,  devises  or  inheritances,  which  said  rates  and  taxes 
may  be  graded  or  proportioned  in  such  way  or  manner  as 
said  general  court  may  direct,  but  said  rates  and  taxes  shall 
never  exceed  ten  per  cent,  .of  said  estates,  bequests,  devises  or 
inheritances." 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  laid 
upon  the  table  to  be  printed,  pending  the  appointment  of 
committees. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  ninety-eight,  part  two,  of  the  Consti- 
tution, be  so  amended  that  all  future  amendments  to  the  Con- 
stitution shall  be  submitted  to  the  people  by  the  general 
court. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  the  resolution  was 
laid  upon  the  table  to  be  printed,  pending  the  appointment 
of  committees. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  offered  the  following  amendment  to  the 
Constitution: 

In  all  elections  of  state,  county,  municipal  and  town  offi- 
cers by  the  people  of  this  state,  the  person  having  the  highest 
number  of  votes  shall  be  deemed  and  declared  to  be  elected. 
All  provisions  of  the  Constitution  in<o~  jistent  herewith  are 
hereby  annulled. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  33 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  laid 
upon  the  table  to  be  printed  and  to  be  referred  to  the  appro- 
priate committee  when  announced. 

The  same  gentleman  offered  the  following  amendment  to 
the  Constitution: 

The  legislature  shall  have  full  power  and  authority  to  es- 
tablish more  than  one  place  of  public  meeting  within  the  lim- 
its of  each  town  or  ward  in  the  state  for  the  casting  of  votes, 
and  the  election  of  officers  under  the  Constitution;  to  pre- 
scribe the  manner  of  warning,  holding,  and  conducting  such 
meetings  and  for  that  purpose  may  divide  any  town  or  ward 
into  voting  precincts. 

Any  provision  of  the  Constitution  of  this  state  inconsistent 
herewith  is  amended  to  conform  hereto. 

Upon  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  amendment  was 
laid  upon  the  table  to  be  printed  and  to  be  referred  to  the 
proper  committee  when  appointed. 

Mr.  Woodbury  of  Woodstock  offered  the  following  proposed 
amendment  to  part  second,  sections  nine  and  ten  of  the  Con- 
stitution: 

Resolved,  To  strike  out  part  of  clause  beginning  in  the  fifth 
line  of  said  section  nine  and  reading  as  follows:  "  And  wards 
of  cities  having  six  hundred  inhabitants  by  the  last  general 
census  of  the  state,  taken  by  authority  of  the  United  States, 
or  of  this  state,  may  elect  one  representative;  if  eighteen  hun- 
dred such  inhabitants,  may  elect  two  representatives;  and  so 
proceeding  in  that  proportion,  making  twelve  hundred  such 
inhabitants  the  mean  increasing  number  for  an  additional 
representative,"  and  insert  the  following:  "And  wards  of 
cities  having  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  legal  voters  at  the 
preceding  biennial  election,  may  elect  one  representative;  if 
six  hundred  and  ninety  such  voters,  may  elect  two  represen- 
tatives; and  so  proceeding  in  that  proportion,  making  five 
3 


34      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

hundred  and  twenty-five  such,  voters  the  mean  increasing 
number  for  an  additional  representative." 

In  the  fourteenth  and  fifteenth  lines  strike  out  the  word 
"census  "  and  insert  "  biennial  election." 

In  article  ten,  in  the  second  and  fifth  lines,  strike  out  the 
words  "  six  "  and  "  inhabitants  "  and  insert  the  words  "  one 
hundred  and  sixty-five  "  and  "  voters." 

So  that  said  sections  will  read  as  follows: 

ART.  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  this  state,  a 
representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  principles  of  equality,  and,  in  order  that  such  repre- 
sentation may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every 
town  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities 
having  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  legal  voters  at  the  preced- 
ing biennial  election,  may  elect  one  representative;  if  six  hun- 
dred and  ninety  such  voters,  may  elect  two  representatives; 
and  so  proceeding  in  that  proportion,  making  five  hundred 
and  twenty-five  such  voters  the  mean  increasing  number  for 
an  additional;  provided,  that  no  town  shall  be  divided  or  the 
boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any  city  so  altered  as  to  increase 
the  number  of  representatives  to  which  such  town  or  city 
may  be  entitled  by  the  next  preceding  biennial  election;  and 
provided,  further,  that,  to  those  towns  and  cities  which  since 
the  last  biennial  election  have  been  divided  or  had  their 
boundaries  or  ward  lines  changed,  the  general  court  in  ses- 
sion next  before  these  amendments  shall  take  effect  shall 
equitably  apportion  representation  in  such  manner  that  the 
number  shall  not  be  greater  than  it  would  have  been  had  no 
such  division  or  alteration  been  made. 

ART.  10.  Whenever  any  town,  place,  or  city  ward  shall 
have  less  than  one  hundred  and  sixty-five  such  voters,  the 
general  court  shall  authorize  such  town,  place,  or  ward  to 
elect  and  send  to  the  general  court  a  representative  such  pro- 
portionate part  of  the  time  as  the  number  of  its  voters  shall 
bear  to  one  hundred  and  sixty-five;  but  the  general  court  shall 
not  authorize  any  such  town,  place,  or  ward  to  elect  and  send 
euch  representative,  except  as  herein  provided. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  35 

The  same  gentleman  moved  that  the  resolution  be  laid  up- 
on the  table  to  be  printed  and  referred  to  the  appropriate 
committee  when  appointed. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  moved  that  the  above  resolution 
be  referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  made  a  special  or- 
der for  Thursday,  December  4,  at  11  o'clock  in  the  forenoon, 
and  Mr.  Woodbury,  withdrawing  his  motion  to  lay  upon  the 
table,  the  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  was  stated  and  prevailed. 

The  following  communication  was  presented  by  Mr. 
Thompson  of  Warner: 

CONCOKD,  K  H.,  December  3,  1902. 
To  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  New  Hampshire: — 

We,  the  undersigned,  general  officers  of  the  Woman's  Suf- 
frage association  of  New  Hampshire,  respectfully  request  your 
honorable  body  to  confer  the  privilege  of  suffrage  upon  wom- 
en by  striking  from  article  twenty-seven  of  the  existing  Con- 
stitution the  word  "  male,"  and  by  such  other  amendment 
thereof  declaratory  of  this  purpose  as  may  be  necessary. 

We  further  request  that  the  Convention,  at  the  close  of  its 
session  Tuesday  afternoon,  December  9,  grant  us  a  hear- 
ing in  Representatives'  hall  at  the  state  house;  provided,  that 
this  request  does  not  interfere  with  the  work  of  the  Conven- 
tion. If  it  does  conflict  with  the  afternoon  session,  then  we 
request  that  a  hearing  be  given  us  on  the  evening  of  Tuesday, 
December  9,  in  the  same  hall. 

MAEY  K  CHASE,  President, 
MAKY  E.  QUIMBY,  Secretary, 
ANGELO  HALL, 

Treasurer,  N.  H.  W.  S.  A. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Thompson,  a  hearing  was  granted  to  the 
Woman's  Suffrage  association  of  New  Hampshire,  to  be  held 
in  Representatives'  hall  on  Tuesday,  December  9,  at  4 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 


36      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  offered  the  following  amendment 
to  the  Constitution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  so  amended  that  the 
house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of  300  members,  which 
shall  be  apportioned  by  the  legislature,  at  the  first  session  af- 
ter a  United  States  census,  to  the  several  counties  of  the  state, 
equally,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  according  to  their  population 
as  ascertained  at  the  next  preceding  United  States  census. 
The  county  commissioners  in  each  county, — or  in  lieu  of  the 
county  commissioners  in  each  county,  such  board  of  special 
commissioners  in  each  county,  to  be  elected  by  the  people  of 
the  county,  as  may  for  that  purpose  be  provided  by  law, — 
shall  on  the  first  Tuesday  of  June  next  after  each  assignment 
of  representatives  to  each  county,  assemble  at  a  shire  town  of 
their  respective  counties  and  proceed,  as  soon  as  may  be,  to 
divide  the  same  into  representative  districts  of  contiguous  ter- 
ritory, so  as  to  apportion  the  representatives  assigned  to  each 
county,  equally,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  according  to  the  relative 
population  in  the  several  districts  of  each  county,  and  such 
districts  shall  be  so  formed  that  no  town  or  ward  shall  be 
divided  therefor.  Districts  may  be  formed  for  one  or  more 
representatives  as  the  contiguity  of  territory  or  the  physical 
and  social  relations  of  the  towns  or  wards  may  warrant.  The 
legislature  at  the  next  session  after  such  division  of  the  coun- 
ties into  representative  districts  may,  upon  appeal  by  a  town 
or  ward,  examine  the  classification  of  that  town  or  ward  and 
change  the  district  lines  of  that  county,  in  accordance  with 
the  provisions  of  this  article,  if  it  shall  appear  that  injustice 
has  been  done. 

The  same  gentleman  moved  that  this  amendment  be  con- 
sidered at  the  time  of  the  special  order  for  Thursday  morn- 
ing, December  4. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  desire  to  make  one  explanation: 
If  you  will  read  this  resolution,  it  will  correct  in  the  minds  of 
a  number  of  the  delegates  of  the  Convention  an  impression 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  37 

that  has  gone  abroad.  There  appeared  in  The  Manchester 
Union  recently  a  classification  of  tl\3  towns  into  districts,  and 
following  that  was  the  map  showing  this  classification.  As  I 
understand,  that  classification  and  the  purpose  for  which  it 
was  prepared  was  educational,  and  to  show  that  districts 
could  be  formed  of  nearly  equal  population.  That  was  pre- 
pared by  a  representative  of  The  Manchester  Union  and  has 
no  connection  with  the  resolution  I  have  offered  to-day,  or 
with  the  opinions  I  have  expressed  in  the  press  on  this  sub- 
ject. The  impression  has  gone  abroad  that  that  classification 
in  The  Manchester  Union  represented  in  detail  the  plan  fav- 
ored by  me  in  districting  the  state.  That  is  not  the  case. 
The  detail  of  the  district  plan  I  propose  to  leave  to  be  worked 
out  by  the  county  commissioners,  or  by  a  special  commission 
authorized  by  the  legislature  in  lieu  of  that. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  the  two  last 
amendments  were  ordered  to  be  considered  a  part  of  the  spe- 
cial order  for  Thursday,  December  4,  and  also  any  others 
•on  the  same  subject  that  might  thereafter  be  introduced. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster,  Mr.  Kidder  of  Gro- 
ton  was  given  leave  of  absence  from  Wednesday  to  Monday 
forenoon  next,  on  account  of  sickness  in  his  family. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  introduced  the  following  pro- 
posed amendment  to  the  Constitution: 

ARTICLE  82,  at  the  end  thereof  add: 

(Individual  enterprise  and  competition  in  trade  should  be 
protected  against  monopolies  which  tend  to  hinder  or  de- 
stroy them.)  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  limit 
the  size  and  functions  of  all  corporations,  to  prohibit  fictitious 
capitalization  therein,  and  to  so  provide  for  their  supervision 
and  government  that  they  will  be  the  servants  and  not  the 
masters  of  the  people. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  foregoing  amend- 


38      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ment  and  all  others  relating  to  trusts,  which  should  be  pre- 
sented, were  made  a  special  order  for  Tuesday,  December  10, 
at  11  o'clock  in  the  forenoon. 

Mr.  Holman  of  Hillsborough  introduced  the  following  pro- 
posed amendment  to  the  Constitution,  to  be  made  a  part  of 
the  special  order  for  11  o'clock,  December  4. 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  so  amended  as  to  pro- 
vide for  the  election  biennially  of  one  representative,  and  one 
representative  only  from  each  and  every  town  and  city  in  the 
state. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  offered  the  following  proposed  amend- 
ment to  article  six,  Bill  of  Rights: 

Strike  out  article  six  of  the  Bill  of  Eights  and  insert  in 
lieu  thereof  as  follows: 

AET.  6.  As  morality  and  piety  will  give  the  best  and 
greatest  security  to  government,  and  will  lay  in  the  hearts 
of  men  the  strongest  obligations  to  right  conduct,  and  as  the 
knowledge  of  these  is  most  likely  to  be  propagated  through 
the  public  worship  of  Deity  and  public  instruction  in  moral- 
ity and  religion,  therefore,  to  promote  these  important  pur- 
poses the  people  of  this  state  have  a  right  to  empower  and  do 
hereby  fully  empower  the  legislature  to  authorize  from  time 
to  time  the  people  in  their  individual  capacity  to  form  bodies 
corporate,  or  religious  societies  within  this  state,  with  power 
to  provide  at  their  own  expense  for  the  support  and  mainte- 
nance of  teachers  of  piety,  religion,  and  morality.  They  may 
elect  their  own  teachers  and  contract  with  them  for  their 
support  and  maintenance,  but  no  person  of  any  one  sect  or 
denomination  shall  ever  be  compelled  to  pay  toward  the  sup- 
port of  the  religious  teachers  of  another  persuasion,  sect,  or 
denomination,  except  in  pursuance  of  his  own  voluntary  con- 
tract. 

No  public  money  or  property  shall  be  appropriated  for  or 
applied  to  the  uses  of  any  religious  society,  sect,  or  denomina- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  39 

tion,  or  the  support  of  any  religious  establishment,  nor  shall 
any  preference  be  given  by  law  to  any  religious  organization 
or  mode  of  worship,  or  any  religious  test  be  required  as  a 
qualification  for  any  office  or  trust,  or  any  one  be  rendered 
incompetent  to  be  a  witness  or  juror  on  account  of  his  opin- 
ions on  matters  of  religious  belief,  but  every  denomination, 
sect,  or  belief,  not  inconsistent  with  the  peace  and  safety  of 
the  state,  shall  be  equally  under  the  protection  of  the  law. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  will  delay  the  matter  that  I  propose 
to  bring  before  the  Convention  if  anyone  has  any  amendment 
which  he  wishes  to  offer. 

I  bring  forward  this  matter  at  this  time  that  the  Conven- 
tion may  proceed  to  consider  it,  if  it  wish,  and  that  the  time 
of  the  Convention  may  not  be  lost. 

I  have  here  a  proposed  amendment  to  article  six  of  the  BiJl 
of  Eights,  or  a  substitute  for  article  six,  and  I  hope  you  gen- 
tlemen will  examine  article  six  of  the  Bill  of  Eights  and  com- 
pare it  with  the  reading  of  this.  I  ask  the  secretary  to  read 
the  proposed  amendment.  (Secretary  reads.) 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Gentlemen,  I  do  not  need,  probably, 
to  say  anything  in  support  of  this  resolution.  If  it  does  not, 
upon  its  reading,  commend  itself  to  you,  I  should  not  hope 
to  enforce  it  by  argument.  I  take  it,  if  anyone  is  in  doubt 
about  the  propriety  of  the  changes  suggested  it  will  be  thor- 
oughly discussed. 

The  principal  object  of  this  amendment  is  to  get  rid  of  two 
words  which  exist  in  article  six — the  word  "  evangelical "  as 
applied  to  religion,  and  the  word  "  Protestant," — and  in  that 
form,  I  think,  the  article  breathes  the  broadest  catholicity  to- 
wards all  denominations  I  cannot  see  how  there  can  be  any 
objection  to  it,  but  if  there  is,  it  ought  to  be  made  known  now, 
and  I  wish  to  ask — although  I  have  no  sympathy  with  the 
views  which  he  represents — that  we  give  to  our  brother  dele- 
gate from  Nashua  our  kindly  consideration  of  his  views  in 
this  connection,  that  he  may  now  be  heard,  and  being  so  heard 
at  the  present  time,  we  shall  not  be  compelled  to  consider  the 


40      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

matter  subsequently  when  we  have  greater  and  more  impor- 
tant business  on  hand. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Baker,  the  Convention  resolved  itself  in- 
to a  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  the  Bill  of  Eights, 
and  especially  to  take  into  consideration  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  on  article  six 
of  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

(In  Committee  of  the  Whole.) 
(Mr.  Cross  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — Would  it  not  be  well  to  have  the 
clerk  read  the  Bill  of  Rights,  section  by  section,  and  if  there 
is  no  amendment  to  these  sections  as  read,  then  we  will  con- 
sider them  as  passed.  I  suggest  that  to  the  gentleman  from 
Bow. 

The  Chairman — Unless  there  is  objection  we  will  take  that 
course.  The  clerk  will  proceed.  (The  clerk  read  articles 
one,  two,  three,  four,  five,  when  Mr.  Everett  of  Nashua  ad- 
dressed the  convention.) 

Mr.  Everett  of  Nashua — In  asking  this  Convention  to  sub- 
mit to  the  people  the  question  of  discarding  all  reference  to 
a  personal  God,  we  do  so  as  one  who  disbelieves  in  any  and 
all  personal  Gods,  in  the  sense  that  there  ever  was  or  is  any 
personal  God  that  has  or  can  create  anything,  or  that  has 
anything  to  do  with  regulating  the  affairs  of  people  or  things 
on  this  earth  or  anywhere  else,  and  in  order  to  make  this  ad- 
dress of  any  effect,  or  even  interesting  to  listen  to,  it  is  neces- 
sary for  us  to  agree  upon  the  meaning  of  four  words. 

All  of  us  have  attended  lectures  which  have  been  spoiled 
by  the  lecturer  using  words  and  expressions  we  could  not 
follow.  Many  a  magazine  and  newspaper  discussion  has  been 
made  worthless  by  the  disputants  insisting  on  different  mean- 
ings to  the  same  words,  and  to-day  we  desire  in  particular  to 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  41 

use  only  language  understandable  by  any  one  with  an  ordi- 
nary knowledge  of  the  English  language.  In  using  quota- 
tions, we  shall  use  only  standard  authorities;  books  written 
by  men  of  ability  and  honesty  of  purpose,  who  had  only  one 
object  in  view, — the  truth.  We  will  not  waste  your  time  in 
quoting  sidelights,  although  many  of  them  are  undoubtedly 
able,  but  the  life  of  most  of  us  is  too  short  to  devote  it  to 
visionary  theories.  What  Atheists  want  is  facts,  and  having 
found  a  fact,  they  admit  it,  and  if  a  mistake  or  falsehood  has 
stood  for  centuries  and  the  error  found  out,  they  expose  it, — 
while  churches  use  every  power,  social,  political,  and  religious, 
to  maintain  errors,  even  after  their  position  is  the  laughing- 
stock of  all  the  world.  Several  notable  instances  of  this  will 
be  given  farther  along. 

The  four  words  whose  meaning  we  wish  to  have  clearly  un- 
derstood are  God,  Theism,  Atheism,  and  Christianity.  We 
shall  speak  in  a  general  way,  only,  of  the  thousand  and  one 
Gods  of  Europe,  Asia,  and  Africa,  the  most  of  them  having 
had  their  day  and  are  known  only  in  history. 

The  God  which  interests  us,  and  by  all  odds  the  greatest 
imposition  of  them  all,  because  outwardly  believed  in  by  the 
most  intelligent  people  on  this  earth,  is  the  Bible  God,  or, 
discarding  the  Jewish  element,  the  Christian  God.  A  per- 
fectly fair  definition  of  this  God  is:  The  Creator  of  all 
things;  a  Being  without  a  beginning  or  an  end;  all  knowing, 
all  powerful,  and  one  that  directly  looks  after  everybody  and 
everything  at  all  times.  By  Theism  is  meant  a  belief  in  a 
God  like  the  above, — the  creator  and  ruler  of  all  things.  All 
Christians  are  Theists,  although  at  the  present  time  there  are 
many  Theists  who  are  not  Christians.  The  Jews,  in  particu- 
lar, reject  Christ,  but  believe  in  a  personal  God.  By  Athe- 
ism is  meant  a  disbelief  in  any  of  the  personal  Gods  that 
fanatical  or  designing  men  have  imposed  on  the  world.  The 
great  bulk  of  these  Gods  have  existed  for  a  more  or  less 
length  of  time;  had  more  or  less  followers;  became  discredit- 
ed and  finally  disappeared.  But  men  out  of  a  job  will  manu- 
facture new  ones  as  fast  as  they  can  create  a  demand.  No 


42      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Atheist  ever  claims  to  know  the  unknowable,  but  accepts  a 
fact  wherever  or  by  whomever  demonstrated.  Every  Athe- 
ist is  ready  to  accept  a  lona  fide  God  at  any  time,  whether  he 
starts  in  business  in  Central  Africa  or  in  Concord,  N.  H. 
But  we  certainly  expect  that  when  a  God  claims  to  have 
created  the  universe,  he  will  know  this  earth  of  ours  is  round 
and  not  flat;  that  he  will  know  that  the  sun  does  not  move 
around  the  earth  daily. 

Atheists  claim  to  be  able  to  prove  that  the  knowledge  and 
attributes  of  all  Gods,  past  and  present,  have  been  exactly  in 
proportion  to  the  intelligence  of  the  people  who  invent  them. 
Our  present  God  has  been  remodeled  so  many  times  that  one 
must  keep  close  watch  of  church  conventions  to  know  just 
what  to  expect  of  God  from  day  to  day.  All  Gods  have  been 
endowed  with  certain  attributes,  and  the  first  and  most  im- 
portant point  for  common  people  to  understand  is  that  these 
attributes  can  only  be  worked  successfully,  if  at  all,  by  priests 
or  ministers.  With  the  older  Gods,  after  a  few  centuries, 
their  country  was  either  conquered  by  some  other  nation  and 
the  people  forced  to  give  up  their  old  Gods,  or,  quite  often, 
there  appeared  Gods  with  more  attractive  promises,  and  after 
a  desperate  struggle  by  the  clergy,  who  have  never  hesitated 
to  use  every  dishonest  and  dishonorable  means,  each  particu- 
lar God  or  Gods  have  been  laid  away  with  other  myths. 
None  of  the  men  or  combinations  of  men  have  been  able  to 
look  far  enough  into  the  future  to  build  up  a  God  that  could 
stand  criticism.  Many  generations  before  science  made  the 
Bible  God  as  ridiculous  as  others  before  him,  there  were  men 
of  courage  and  independence  who  saw  and  pointed  out  glar- 
ing errors  of  the  Bible  until  many  concluded  that  God  and 
Robinson  Crusoe  were  cast  adrift  on  the  same  island,  and  that 
when  God  inspired  the  Bible  he  had  never  been  outside  the 
island. 

By  Christianity  is  meant  the  religion  which  takes  its  name 
from  a  man  who  lived  about  1900  years  ago,  and  about  whom 
very  little  is  known.  He  was  born  in  what  is  now  Asiatic 
Turkey,  near  the  coast  of  the  extreme  eastern  end  of  the 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  4& 

Mediterranean  sea,  not  very  far  from  Africa,  his  parents  be- 
ing Jews  of  the  poorer  class.  He  was  called  Jesus,  which 
means  a  carpenter,  and  afterwards  took  or  was  given  the  title 
of  Christ,  "  The  Anointed  One"  commonly  understood  to 
mean  the  only  begotten  son  of  the  Bible  God.  He  collected 
more  or  less  followers  to  whom  he  preached,  and  as  proof  of 
his  Godship,  performed  miracles.  That  is,  he  performed,  it 
is  claimed,  feats  such  as  no  one  has  been  able  to  do  before  or 
since  in  a  natural  way.  Christians  believe  this  Christ  was 
executed  by  the  authorities;  buried  in  a  sepulchre,  and  after 
three  days  was  restored  to  life,  remained  on  earth  forty  days, 
then  ascended  to  His  Father  to  a  place  called  Heaven.  The 
one  and  only  object  of  his  visit  to  earth  was  on  account  of  the 
sinfulness  of  the  earth's  inhabitants;  that  a  belief  in  him 
meant  and  means  an  eternity  in  a  place  called  Heaven,  and 
that  he  permitted  himself  to  suffer  physical  death  as  the 
only  possible  way  to  pacify  his  Father,  and  the  only  condi- 
tion by  which  God  would  forgive  the  wicked.  After  return- 
ing to  Heaven,  Christ  is  supposed  to  have  devoted  his  time 
to  arranging  the  many  mansions  for  the  faithful  as  they  died 
and  showed  up  in  Heaven,  properly  certified  to  by  the  Chris- 
tian fathers.  Had  this  address  been  prepared  ten  years  ago, 
our  definition  of  Christianity  would  have  included  the  Chris- 
tian belief  in  hell,  or  punishment  after  death  for  unbelievers, 
and  while  these  threats  are  in  just  the  same  place  in  the  New 
Testament  as  they  always  were,  and  the  supposed  personal 
saying  of  Christ  in  Matthew  25:41  still  reads,  "Then  shall 
he  say  also  unto  them  on  the  left  hand,  Depart  from  me,  ye 
cursed,  into  everlasting  fire  prepared  for  the  devil  and  his- 
angels.  And  these  shall  go  away  into  everlasting  punish- 
ment." But  within  ten  years,  the  Protestant  churches  say 
hell  does  not  mean  hell,  but  a  place  for  the  dead,  and  have 
tried  to  change  the  word  hell  to  hades;  but,  as  a  matter  of 
fact,  hades  is  a  Greek  word  and  means  exactly  the  same  as  the 
Saxon  word  hell,  and  no  matter  what  churches  may  do,  that 
rugged  old  Saxon  word,  hell,  is  a  fixture  in  the  English  lan- 
guage. Hades  may  do  for  milk-and-water  men,  but  the  old 


44      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

expressive  word  is  essential  to  positive,  aggressive  people,  and 
at  times  no  one  can  fully  express  himself  without  its  use. 
There  are  places  in  the  New  Testament  where  translators  use 
the  word  "  Gehenna,"  and  Gehenna  in  the  Bible  and  in  all 
other  Hebrew  writings  is  never  used  except  as  a  place  of  pun- 
ishment. But,  excluding  the  Catholic  belief,  at  this  time,  we 
shall  not  insist  on  hell  as  being  a  part  of  Christianity,  it  being 
understood  that  our  definition  of  Christianity  is  for  the  day 
and  hour.  The  Protestant  church  has  made  so  many  somer- 
saults in  the  past  few  years  that  we  may  awake  any  morning 
to  find  that  it  has  given  up  God  and  Christ,  in  fact  everything 
except  the  bed-rock  of  all  religions, — the  contribution  box. 

Having  defined  the  four  words  so  important  to  our  argu- 
ment, our  first  position  is  to  deal  with  all  personal  Gods  in 
the  abstract.  The  Bible  God  will  be  considered  here  only  as 
one  of  the  countless  other  Gods,  past  and  present.  It  deals 
with  Theism  proper;  that  there  is  a  personal  creator  and 
ruler  of  the  universe.  This  subject  has  been  largely  ignored 
by  the  church.  There  are  very  few  books  on  the  subject. 
Occasionally  prominent  churchmen  have  discussed  this,  but 
always  briefly.  The  Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  Tillotson, 
uses  the  word  "  fool,"  and  says  any  man  is  a  fool  who  believes 
that  the  universe,  with  all  its  regularity  and  order,  could  have 
got  into  place  or  for  a  moment  remain  in  place  without  a  per- 
sonal God.  At  the  Congress  of  Eeligions  at  Chicago,  the 
Very  Eev.  Augustine  F.  Hewitt,  C.  S.  P.,  of  New  York,  dis- 
cussed the  "  Kational  Demonstration  of  the  Being  of  God." 
It  is  a  profound  article  and  worth  reading,  and  we  think 
covers  about  all  that  can  be  said  by  those  who  believe  in  a 
God.  The  marginal  notes  lead  one  to  hope  that  he  is  going 
to  say  something  tangible,  but  one  reads  the  text  in  vain.  It 
is  full  of  assertions  that  are  as  applicable  to  the  God  Jo-Jo  of 
Central  Africa  as  to  the  Bible  God,  with  no  evidence  for 
either.  He  says :  "  In  case  of  a  train  of  cars  in  motion,  if  we 
ask  what  moves  the  last  car,  the  answer  may  be  the  car  be- 
fore it,  and  so  on,  until  we  reach  the  other  end;  but  we  have 
as  yet  only  motion  received  and  transmitted  and  no  sufficient 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  45 

reason  for  the  movement  of  the  first  car  by  an  adequate  cause; 
and  how  did  this  vast  mass  of  matter,  the  universe,  and  the 
mighty  forces  acting  upon  it,  come  to  be  started  on  their 
course.  It  is  necessary  to  go  back  to  a  first  cause,  a  first  mov- 
er, a  being  self-existing,  whose  essence  is  pure  act  and  the 
source  of  all  actuality."  This  is  his  argument,  and  in  the 
very  next  paragraph  he  says:  "The  only  alternative  is  to 
fall  back  on  the  doctrine  of  chance,  an  absurdity  long  since 
exploded  and  abandoned,  a  renunciation  of  all  reason."  The 
last  passage  is  more  thoughtful  and  much  fairer  than  it  seems 
at  first  glance.  He  says  that  at  some  time  in  the  past  there 
was  a  doctrine  of  chance,  but  that  "  long  since  that  was  aban- 
doned." He  does  not  lay  it  to  the  present  or  nearby  genera- 
tions, but  to  long  ago.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  we  are  unable  to 
find  a  writer  of  good  or  poor  standing  who  ever  advocated 
chance  as  the  origin  of  things.  Confucius  and  Buddha,  the 
philosophers  of  Asia,  would  not  say  what  they  thought  was 
the  first  cause,  and  of  all  things,  they  did  say  it  was  not 
chance. 

There  is  another  argument  that  puzzles  the  Theist  proper, 
— those  that  do  not  belong  to  any  church  but  still  believe  in 
a  personal  God.  They  say  that  science  has  demonstrated  be- 
yond a  reasonable  doubt  that  this  earth  of  ours  was  once  a 
molten  mass;  a  ball  of  fire,  and  of  course,  no  life,  as  we  know 
it,  could  exist  on  it;  but  they  say  life  is  here,  and  to  get  here 
must  have  had  a  creator.  It  will  be  noted  that  Archbishop 
Tillotson,  Father  Hewitt,  and  the  Theists  proper  present  the 
same  argument, — the  impossibility  of  things  without  a  crea- 
tor. It  can  be  fairly  said  that  people  who  reason  as  above 
do  not  possess  logical  minds.  They  try  to  cross  the  bridge 
before  they  reach  it.  At  the  first  suggestion  of  mystery  or 
anything  unexplainable,  they  satisfy  their  minds  with  saying, 
this  can  be  explained  only  as  being  the  work  of  some  per- 
sonal God, — the  easy  refuge  of  the  non-intellectual.  They 
ignore  the  real  question.  They  look  at  the  covers  of  the 
book,  and  seem  to  care  nothing  for  what  is  inside. 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  this  universe  is  an  impossibility,  and 


46      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

can  be  kept  running  only  by  a  creator  and  ruler,  ask  your- 
selves the  only  real  question:  Who,  or  what,  created  this 
creator?  Who  made  this  God?  What  made  this  God?  How 
much  more  vast,  more  grand,  more  intellectual  this  God  must 
be  than  anything  He  created.  The  universe  no  human  mind 
can  grasp,  nor  even  a  small  part  of  its  vastness.  Its  number- 
less systems  of  suns;  its  countless  stars, — some  growing,  some 
dying,  some  dead.  If  it  is  any  satisfaction  to  Theists  to  as- 
sert that  anybody  and  everybody  believes  in  chance  when 
they  ask  the  only  real  question,  Who  made  God?  let  them 
make  the  most  of  it.  But,  if  it  temporarily  deceives  some 
people,  it  does  not  conceal  the  real  question  of  who  made  this 
God.  Churches  have  never  met  this  all-important  issue. 
They  have  delivered  a  lot  of  twaddle, — and  twaddle  is  the 
right  word, — about  God  being  infinite  and  we  being  finite,  and 
that  the  finite  cannot  comprehend  the  infinite.  But  in  all  re- 
ligious services,  we  are  told  just  what  God  has  done  in  the  past, 
is  doing  now,  and  how  He  will  deal  with  us  in  future;  but 
when  you  have  satisfied  yourself  where  and  how  this  God 
was  made,  then  it  may  not  be  necessary  to  ask  an  Atheist  how 
life  began  on  this  earth.  If  Atheism  does  not  know,  it  says 
so,  and  never  guesses. 

Which  belief  do  you  think  will  stand  through  coming  ages? 
The  belief  that  says  to  one's  family  or  neighbors,  we  have 
studied  this  question  and  we  find  unexplainable  things  sur- 
rounding Us  on  all  sides.  We  are  willing  to  spend  time  and 
means  to  solve  these  mysteries,  but  so  long  as  they  are  unex- 
plainable we  say  what  we  ought  to  say, — we  do  not  know. 
Again  we  ask,  which  will  last,  this  belief  or  the  belief  that 
says  of  every  mystery,  this  is  easily  explained;  it  is  the 
work  of  a  personal  God? 

Before  starting  on  our  direct  argument  for  Atheism,  we 
are  not  going  to  ignore  the  last  hope  and  refuge  of  a  decaying 
religion.  We  refer  to  what  is  known  as  the  spiritual  side  of 
human  nature;  not  the  question  of  immortality,  but  the  ac- 
tions and  impulses  that  govern  our  every-day  life.  It  is  now 
and  always  has  been  an  important  part  of  the  stock  in  trade 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  47 

of  all  the  clergy  to  claim  that  all  impulses  and  acts  that,  in 
their  opinion,  were  good,  and  especially  those  that  were  favor- 
able to  their  particular  church,  were  directly  inspired  by  a 
God.  No  believer  was  allowed  to  doubt  this,  and  no  prayer 
is  ever  made  that  omits  to  return  thanks  for  it,  because  the 
minister  says  it  is  so.  The  truth  is  that  this  so-called  "  God- 
given  spiritual  side  "  always  has  been  the  sentimental  side  of 
mankind  and  animals,  the  subjective  side,  working  more 
slowly  in  Asia  than  with  the  sentimental  school  girl.  This 
sentiment  is  magnified  in  men  by  surroundings,  disposition, 
teachings  and  by,  not  the  least  important,  what  they  eat.  It 
is  recognized  by  all  who  have  studied  the  subject  that  human 
beings,  and  at  least  the  more  intelligent  animals,  have  an  ob- 
jective and  subjective  mind  or  brain.  By  objective  brain,  we 
mean  that  part  of  the  intellect  that  demands  actual  or  reason- 
able proof  of  what  we  are  told  or  read.  For  instance,  if  we 
read  that  the  New  Hampshire  state  house  is  in  Concord,  we 
have  only  to  come  to  Concord  to  demonstrate  the  fact,  and  our 
objective  mind  is  satisfied  by  actual  proof  that  what  we  had 
heard  and  read  was  true.  Again,  if  inconvenient  to  come  to 
Concord,  we  could  find  many  neighbors  who  had  seen  the 
state  house;  many  books;  many  histories,  where  writers  had 
personally  been  in  our  state  house,  and,  although  never  hav- 
ing seen  it,  we  would  be  very  unreasonable  to  consider  it  any- 
thing but  an  objective  truth.  On  the  other  hand,  should  we 
meet  some  one  on  the  street  who  should  say  he  had  just  come 
from  the  state  house,  and  that  he  had  helped  examine  a  dun- 
geon under  the  state  house,  and  one  hundred  skeletons  had 
been  taken  out,  our  objective  mind  would  rebel  and  demand 
more  than  the  statement  of  one  man.  One  case  illustrates 
the  point  as  well  as  the  other.  The  idea  is  that  the  objective 
mind  or  brain  demands  outward,  logical,  and  reasonable  proof, 
and  will  not  believe  anything  until  it  has  such  proof.  Now, 
the  subjective  mind  or  brain  is  governed  by  impulses,  by  im- 
pressions. It  never  asks  for  a  reason,  and  in  most  cases  does 
not  want  a  reason.  The  impression  they  receive  agrees  with 
their  condition  of  mind,  and  they  revolt  at  any  proof  that  will 


48      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

change  the  conditions,  whether  they  be  good  or  bad.  We  at* 
tend  a  theater.  The  play  is  good;  the  acting  good.  We  fol- 
low it  with  great  interest  as  though  it  were  real,  and  go  to 
see  the  same  play,  perhaps,  twice,  perhaps  a  dozen  times.  We 
do  not  stop  for  a  moment  to  think  that  the  whole  play  is 
largely  the  imagination  of  some  fertile  brain,  and  we  do  not 
know  or  care  what  the  private  life  of  the  actors  may  be.  We 
only  know  that  we  enjoy  it,  and  our  subjective  mind  drifts 
with  the  play.  We  attend  some  comic  opera  time  and  again, 
and  enjoy  it  every  time.  Somebody  says,  "  That  opera  is 
senseless,"  but  we  do  not  care  what  somebody  says.  The  mu- 
sic suits  us.  We  do  not  go  to  please  our  neighbors,  but  our 
own  subjective  brain.  All  of  the  sentiments  expressing  love, 
fear,  and  hope  affect  the  subjective  brain.  Mesmerism  and 
hypnotism  depend  on  the  subjective  mind.  The  stronger 
minded  a  person  is  the  easier  he  controls  the  subjective  brain 
of  a  weaker-willed  person,  after  once  gaining  his  or  her  confi- 
dence. A  timid  person  having  trouble  with  one  of  whom  he 
is  afraid  allows  his  subjective  mind  to  imagine  a  thousand 
things,  none  of  which  ever  occur.  We  meet  very  often  men 
who  have  the  most  sanguine  hopes  of  success  in  some  under- 
taking, but  we  know  from  the  men,  themselves,  and  their 
surroundings,  that  they  are  bound  to  fail;  but  they,  yielding 
to  their  subjective  brain,  use  no  reason  whatever;  and  it  is 
here  that  all  religions  accomplish  their  most  successful  work. 
When  a  man  or  woman  is  under  the  influence  of  good  diges- 
tion, or  good  music,  or  of  people  they  like  and  wish  to  please, 
or  of  stronger  minded  people  who  have  gained  their  confi- 
dence, their  subjective  mind  is  given  up  to  impressions  which 
they  accept  as  facts.  And  when  the  fanatical  or  designing 
minister  tells  them  that  these  impressions,  if  good  and  pleas- 
ant, are  spiritual  and  come  only  from  a  personal  God,  they 
say,  "  That  is  good  enough  for  me,"  and  readily  accept  the 
God  which  comes  handiest;  in  other  words,  the  God  that  pre- 
vails in  the  country  in  which  they  live.  On  the  other  hand, 
if  the  impressions  on  the  subjective  brain  are  bad  and  make 
the  person  unhappy  or  lead  to  injury  to  person  or  the  com- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  49 

munity,  all  religions  have  provided  an  evil  power.  Until  very 
lately  the  Protestant  church  has  had  the  devil  to  fall  back 
upon,,  but  at  present  the  Greek  and  Koman  Catholic  churches 
have  a  monopoly  of  Satan. 

It  ought  not  to  be  necessary  to  stop  long  to  think  over  the 
claims  of  the  church  on  the  subjective  mind,  or  to  realize  how 
weak  its  position  is.  If  there  is  anything  in  the  claim  that 
the  subjective  brain  is  spiritual  and  controlled  by  a  God,  we 
cannot  ignore  the  vicious  and  bad  elements  that  are  found  in 
the  same  mind.  No  religion  can  hold  itself  together  that  de- 
pends for  its  existence  on  the  claim  that  all  that  is  good  is  a 
gift,  an  inspiration  from  an  all  powerful  and  perfect  God,  and 
all  that  is  bad  comes  from  some  other  source. 

And  this  brings  us  to  our  direct  argument  for  Atheism.  A 
statement  of  what  Atheists  think  they  know  about  this  so- 
called  first  cause  or  origin  of  things.  We  think  we  know  that 
there  was  no  beginning  to  time.  That  no  matter  how  far 
back  we  go,  be  it  millions  or  billions  of  years,  time  existed  be- 
fore. We  also  think  we  know  that  there  is  no  limit  to  space. 
No  matter  how  far  we  go  or  in  what  direction,  there  is  room 
beyond.  Now,  if  we  are  right  about  time  and  space,  we  feel 
equally  sure  that  this  vast  space  has  always  been  filled  with 
some  kind  of  matter,  if  nothing  more  than  air,  and  as  it  is 
impossible  to  conceive  of  even  air  without  some  pressure,, 
our  conceptions  are  supported  by  every  possible  scientific 
test,  saying  that  it  is  impossible  to  separate  force  or  energy 
from  any  kind  of  matter.  Therefore,  we  think  we  know  that 
matter  and  force  had  no  beginning  as  well  as  time  and  space. 
For  some  years  scientific  men  have  been  unhampered.  We 
are  not  aware  of  a  single  college  that  has  attempted  to  conceal 
a  single  fact  in  geology,  chemistry,  or  astronomy,  and  one  of 
the  subjects  to  which  scientists  have  devoted  years  of  experi- 
ence, and  are  still  ready  to  experiment  on,  is  to  destroy  any 
kind  of  ponderable  matter,  and  the  reverse,  to  make  some- 
thing out  of  nothing.  Next  summer  say  to  your  minister, — 
Take  double  your  usual  vacation;  go  to  the  laboratories  of  the 
university  from  which  you  graduated,  and  show  the  world  how 
4 


50       JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

to  make  something  from  nothing,  or  how  to  destroy  any  kind 
of  matter,  and  while  he  is  gone  you  want  to  pray  early  and 
often  for  God  to  help  him.  If  he  succeeds,  the  personal  God 
idea  will  receive  a  boom  it  so  sadly  needs.  If  he  succeeds, 
those  of  you  who  hold  any  stock  in  the  God  scheme,  hold  on 
to  it,  as  it  will  certainly  increase  in  value.  Science  has  di- 
vided all  matter  into  elements.  By  an  element  is  meant  a 
division  of  things  we  see,  feel,  or  hear  of  around  us  into  the 
different  things  that  compose  them,  and  those  parts  that  can- 
not be  sub-divided  into  simpler  parts  are  called  elements. 
Eain  water  can  be  divided  into  hydrogen  and  oxygen,  but 
neither  hydrogen  nor  oxygen  can  be  divided,  as  far  as  known. 
We  burn  a  piece  of  wood,  whether  it  be  hard  or  soft,  and  re- 
gardless of  degree  of  heat,  with  a  proper  collection  of  the  ashes 
and  gases,  every  particle  of  matter  is  there.  Nothing  is  de- 
stroyed. Heat,  pressure,  cold,  is  no  more  able  to  destroy 
anything,  the  one  than  the  other.  Equally  impossible  have 
feeen  ail  attempts  to  create  something  out  of  nothing. 

An-d  now  comes  our  second  great  question.  With  time, 
space,  force,  and  matter  eternal,  and,  therefore,  without  a 
creator,  and  the  demonstrated  impossibility  of  creating  any- 
thing, where  does  this  personal  God,  the  maker  of  all  things, 
conre  in;  this  creative  God,  so  essential  to  all  religions?  Gen- 
tlemen, this  God  comes  in  with  Santa  Glaus,  but  not  under 
such  pleasant  conditions.  This  God  comes  in  with  ghosts, 
with  witches.  This  Bible  God  is  laid  away  with  Bel,  the  crea- 
tor, and  Baal,  the  ruler  of  all  things  in  Assyrian  civilization; 
laid  away  with  Osiris  and  Isis,  the  Gods  of  civilized  Egypt; 
laid  away  with  the  mythological  Gods  of  Greece,  to  which  we 
owe  so  much;  laid  away  with  Odin  and  Wodin  of  the  Norse- 
men,— all  dead  and  all  very  powerful  in  their  day. 

I<n  an  ordinary  discussion,  after  showing  the  impossibility 
of  any  'creative  Gods,  it  would  be  superfluous  to  go  back  and 
destroy  any  particular  God;  and  it  is  superfluous.  Our  only 
excuse  is  that  if  our  position  as  an  Atheist  could  be  shown  to 
be  a  mistake,  we  could  still  show  the  Bible  God,  the  God  in 
the  New  Hampshire  Constitution,  to  be  a  myth,  and  by  far 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  51 

a,  greater  humbug  than  all  the  others;  it  being  understood  that 
we  are  not  trying  to  convince  those  who  have  a  selfish  interest 
in  the  Christian  religion.  So  long  as  the  Protestant  and  the 
Catholic  churches  own  two  billions  of  dollars'  worth  of  proper- 
ty, and  support  so  many  people,  there  will  be  supporters,  no 
matter  what  the  proofs  against  it,  and  I  wish  to  call  your  at- 
tention to  some  of  the  proofs.  Those  of  you  who  are  over  for- 
ty will  distinctly  recall  Adam  Clarke's  Commentaries  on  the 
Bible.  Until  a  very  few  years  ago  they  were  rated  as  the 
highest  authority.  While  claimed  by  the  Methodist  church, 
they  were  so  far  ahead  of  other  commentaries  that  all  Chris- 
tian writers  quoted  them  more  or  less.  Clarke  was  an  Eng- 
lish minister,  a  Greek  and  Hebrew  scholar,  and  devoted  twen- 
ty years  to  the  preparation  of  his  books.  In  his  commentary 
he  devotes  a  great  deal  of  space  to  the  age  of  this  earth  we  live 
on.  He  goes  into  the  most  minute  details,  and,  while  the 
practical  result  is  about  the  same  as  Ussher's,  he  asserts, 
backed  up  by  Bible  figures,  that  God  created  our  earth  4004 
years  before  Christ,  and  as  Christ  was  born  four  years  before 
our  system  of  dates  began,  makes  our  earth  5910  years  old  at 
present.  That  the  Bible  writers  intended  to  fix  the  age  of 
the  earth  is  certain,  as  they  speak,  after  all  but  one  creative 
day,  of  the  morning  and  the  evening  of  that  particular  day, 
and  devote  whole  chapters  of  Genesis  to  the  ages  of  the  pa- 
triarchs, tracing  their  offspring  down  to  Noah,  and  later,  be- 
yond. There  is  another  account  in  Genesis  that  speaks  of 
"  the  day  "  in  which  "  the  Lord  God  made  the  earth  and  the 
heavens."  But  these  little  discrepancies  made  but  little  trou- 
ble for  the  church  leaders.  That  really  great  leader,  Martin 
Luther,  settled  the  matter  for  a  time  in  the  usual  clear-as-mud 
way  of  trying  to  explain  the  unexplainable,  by  saying:  "  Moses 
spoke  properly  and  plainly,  and  neither  allegorically  nor  fig- 
uratively, that  the  world  with  all  its  creatures  was  created  in 
six  days."  And  then  goes  on  to  show  how,  by  a  great  mira- 
cle, the  whole  creation  was  also  instantaneous,  and  in  his 
great  and  standard  work,  Dr.  John  Lightfoot,  vice-chancellor 
of  the  University  of  Cambridge,  and  the  great  Hebrew  schol- 


52       JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ar,  declared^  as  the  result  of  his  most  profound  and  exhaustive- 
study  of  the  Scriptures,  that  "  Heaven  and  earth,  center  and 
circumference,  were  created  all  together,  in  the  same  instant^ 
and  clouds  full  of  water,  and  that  this  work  took  place,  and 
man  was  created  by  the  Trinity  on  October  23,  4004  B.  C.,  at 
9  o'clock  in  the  morning." 

But  whether  we  take  the  six-days'  scheme  or  the  instan- 
taneous theory  makes  no  practical  difference.  The  Bible  age 
of  the  earth  and  the  heavens  is  not  far  from  5900  years,  and 
no  specious  argument  made  necessary  by  the  occasion  can  al- 
ter it.  As  we  discuss  the  flood,  we  shall  say  something  of 
the  real  age  of  the  earth,  but  here  only  of  facts  actually 
proven.  During  the  last  part  of  the  eighteenth  century,  univer- 
sities and  scientific  men  of  England  and  France  began  to  open 
up  the  mounds  and  graves  of  Egypt  in  a  small  way,  but  not 
until  a  very  few  years  ago  was  much  done  in  a  systematic  way. 
And  what  have  they  found?  They  have  found  inscriptions 
on  slate,  on  stone,  on  bricks,  on  wood,  that  give  authentic 
proofs  of  an  advanced  civilization  8100  years  old;  a  nation 
with  government,  laws,  kings,  priests,  and  soldiers.  And  no- 
scholar,  Christian  or  not,  supposes  this  civilization  sprang 
into  existence  in  a  moment,  but  was  the  usual  slow  growth 
of  centuries.  This  little  matter  of  2,200  years  is  only  a  trifle 
for  a  minister  to  overcome,  especially  if  he  has  a  good  salary. 
But,  gentlemen,  listen  again:  In  digging  in  what  was  Chal- 
dea  and  Babylon,  in  Asia,  they  find  not  only  records  older 
than  the  Bible,  but  that  the  Bible  account  of  creation  was 
borrowed  bodily  from  the  Chaldeans.  This  ought  to  strike 
some  of  us  that  the  God  who  imposed  this  old  story  on  Jews 
ought  to  have  another  chance  to  reinspire  another  Bible.  Of 
course,  if  the  creation  is  borrowed  from  an  older  religion, 
whether  from  Chaldea  or  India,  there  can  be  no  truth  in  the 
fall-of-man  theory,  commonly  known  as  the  Adam  and  Eve 
story.  This  story,  on  which  the  Jewish  and  the  Christian  re- 
ligions depend  so  much,  is  that  after  God  had  made  the  earth 
ready  for  man  to  inhabit,  he  made  a  man  "  after  his  own 
image  "  and  called  him  Adam,  and  shortly  after  took  one  of 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  53 

Adam's  ribs  and  made  therefrom  a  woman.  This  man  and 
woman  were  perfect  in  form  and  mind.  They  were  placed  in 
a  most  beautiful  and  productive  garden;  starting  life  with 
best  of  prospects,  and  Eve's  relatives  must  have  thought  that 
she  had  married  well.  But  Eve  had  hardly  finished  sewing 
together  a  few  fig  leaves,  when  a  serpent  came  into  the  gar- 
den. It  is  not  material  here  whether  this  serpent  had  organs 
of  speech  or  not,  or  whether  he  sailed  in  on  the  end  of  his  tail 
or  not,  or  whether  the  word  "  serpent "  is  translated  right  or 
not.  The  point  is  that  the  serpent  represented  sin  and  evil. 
He  is  supposed  to  have  said  to  Eve,  "  You  and  Adam  are  not 
getting  all  that  is  coming  to  you;  help  yourselves  to  the  for- 
Tndden  fruit,  and  if  there  is  any  trouble,  send  for  me."  Eve 
found  Adam,  and  said,  "  If  we  are  going  to  run  this  garden, 
let  us  run  the  whole  of  it;  the  tree  of  knowledge  is  none  too 
good  for  us;  let  us  eat."  Adam  requires  but  little  urging, 
and  both  do  eat.  About  this  time  God  shows  up.  The  man 
;and  woman  show  signs  of  guilt;  some  of  the  forbidden  fruit 
Is  missing,  and  God  says,  "  This  is  bad  business.  I  gave  you 
a  great  start  in  life;  set  you  up  in  housekeeping  with  all  the 
modern  improvements;  provided  you  with  everything  in  the 
line  of  eatables  and  livestock,  and  now  you  have  given  me  a 
cold-blooded  throw-down."  Then  this  perfect  man,  Adam, 
shows  his  manliness  by  trying  to  lay  all  the  blame  upon  Eve, 
with  the  baby  cry  of  "  the  woman  is  to  blame,  she  tempted 
me."  This  shows  what  the  old  Hebrews  thought  of  women. 
As  a  matter  of  fact,  while  our  original  ancestors  were  un- 
doubtedly brutes  and  savages,  they  were  not  sneaks,  and  it 
is  only  Bible  believers  that  would  have  us  believe  our  first 
man  hid  himself  under  the  bedclothes  and  whined  out, 
-"  Don't  blame  me,  my  wife  alone  is  guilty."  There  is  every 
evidence  that  one  of  the  ingrained  instincts  of  mankind  is  to 
protect  the  wife  when  anyone  attacks  her,  and  to-day,  at  no 
time  in  a  man's  life  does  he  feel  himself  more  a  man  than 
when  he  can  step  in  front  of  his  wife  and  family  and  say  to 
the  whole  world,  "  If  there  is  any  blame  coming,  I  will  take 
the  whole  of  it."  Every  man,  when  he  thinks  or  speaks  of 


54       JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

women  has,  or  ought  to  have,  an  ideal,  and  that  ideal  should 
be  his  mother  and  his  wife.  Again,  as  we  have  said  repeated- 
ly, the  whole  story  is  imaginary.  When  God  was  letting  sin 
and  evil  into  the  world,  in  Africa  was  an  advanced  civiliza- 
tion, with  magnificent  temples  and  comforts  and  luxuries  of 
financial  wealth.  Sixteen  hundred  and  fifty-six  years  after 
this,  says  the  Bible,  came  what  we  call  the  flood,  or,  correct- 
ly speaking,  the  deluge.  By  deluge  is  meant  the  submersion 
of  all  the  land  of  the  earth.  That  is,  that  enough  water  came 
from  somewhere  to  cover  every  particle  of  land  at  the  same 
time.  The  Bible  states  that  the  world  had  become  so  wicked, 
— and  if  there  were  any  truth  in  the  story  we  have  a  right 
to  infer  that  animals  as  well  as  human  beings  were  sinful,  too; 
at  any  rate,  God  says  every  living  thing  must  die  by  drowning,, 
except  Noah  and  his  family,  and  two  or  seven  of  the  animal 
kingdom,  and  the  deluge  took  place  as  per  schedule,  accord- 
ing to  the  Bible.  Now,  if  this  flood  account  were  true,  it 
shows  a  most  powerful  miracle.  It  would  require  twenty- 
seven  times  as  much  water  as  thene  is  in  all  our  oceans,  and 
any  power  that  could  produce  water  enough  and  take  it  away 
in  a  few  days  would  have  quite  a  claim  to  be  called  a  God  or 
any  other  name  it  might  prefer.  This  flood  story  was  for 
many  centuries  the  backbone  of  all  miracle  stories.  Jews  and 
Christians  clung  to  this  with  perfect  faith  until  very  recent- 
ly; how  recently  we  shall  show,  remarking  here  that  scien- 
tists have  unearthed  well-ordered  villages  in  the  Valley  of 
the  Nile  that  furnish  connected  evidence  of  having  been  in 
existence  years  before  and  years  after  the  time  when  the  Bi- 
ble says  the  flood  took  place.  But,  between  1600  and  1800,. 
geologists  and  astronomers  began  to  doubt  this  big  rain  story, 
and  while  the  world  was  completely  under  religious  control 
and  these  men  largely  beholden  to  churches,  they  were  guard- 
ed in  what  they  said;  but  as  they  began  to  dig  into  the  secrets 
of  Nature,  and  improved  on  magnifying  glasses,  they  found' 
innumerable  fossils  all  over  the  world.  In  the  cold  countries 
was  found  fossil  remains  of  fishes  and  animals;  they  found' 
them  on  hills,  in  valleys,  at  the  bottom  of  lakes  and  marshes^ 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  55 

and  they  found  that  most  of  them  could  exist  only  in  warm 
countries  when  alive.  Here  was  a  life-saver  for  the  church. 
In  all  its  trouble  with  science,  it  had  always  been  beaten,  but 
here  science,  itself,  was  furnishing  indisputable  evidence  of 
the  flood.  The  fossils  were  too  many  and  too  widely  scat- 
tered to  even  suggest  trickery,  and  the  church  said,  proudly 
and  boldly,  that  the  only  way  remains  of  hot  countries  could 
get  into  cold  countries  was  by  being  floated  there  by  the  del- 
uge. This  claim  of  the  truthfulness  of  the  flood  has  been  on^ 
of  the  very  latest  and  hardest  for  the  church  to  give  up. 
Archbishop  Colenso,  archbishop  of  South  Africa,  was  excom- 
municated from  the  English  church  about  1860  for  writing  a 
book  saying  that  the  flood  story  was  not  true. 

Watson's  Biblical  Dictionary,  printed  in  England  and 
America  in  1848,  devotes  eight  columns  to  proving  the  del- 
uge to  be  true,  and  uses  the  fossil  argument  as  its  strongest 
point. 

But  geology  had  not  yet  begun.  In  the  opening  of  coal 
mines  it  found  similar  fossils  many  feet  below  the  surface, 
embedded  in  rocks  and  in  slate  that  no  water  could  put  there*. 
That  these  when  living  required  a  warm  climate  could  be  and 
is  explained,  not  by  a  flood  or  by  an  earth  6,000  years  old, 
but  that  many  millions  of  years  ago  this  cold  country  was 
very  warm;  and  when  geologists  studied  the  rocks,  the  dif- 
ferent stratas  of  earth,  by  observation,  by  the  application  of 
advanced  knowledge  of  heat  and  cold,  they  found  the  age  of 
our  earth  to  be  measured,  not  by  thousands  of  years,  but  by 
millions,  how  many  millions  is  guesswork. 

About  1830,  Keill  and  others  showed  that  it  would  require 
twenty-seven  times  as  much  water  as  exists  in  all  oceans  to 
drown  the  earth,  and  in  1862,  Sir  Charles  Lyell,  then  65  years 
old,  the  celebrated  geologist,  a  college  professor,  knighted  in 
1848,  for  years  president  of  the  English  Geological  society,  a 
lifelong  Christian,  a  traveler,  lecturer,  and  author,  who  in  his 
younger  days  had  defended  the  Bible  account,  came  out  and 
said  that  the  deluge  could  no  longer  be  defended,  and  this, 
bear  in  mind,  was  only  forty  years  ago.  Since  then  Chris- 
tians have  given  up  the  struggle. 


56       JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

This  brings  us  to  the  body  blow, — the  blow  that  almost 
killed  father,  the  blow  that  both  Protestant  and  Catholic 
churches  fought  so  hard,  not  only  with  priestly  influence, 
but  by  torture  and  persecution,  covering  three  centuries,  and 
that  even  to  this  day  the  church  is  apologizing  for,  denying 
and  explaining  what  cannot  be  denied  or  explained.  About 
150  an  Egyptian  mathematician  and  astronomer,  named 
Ptolomy,  announced  a  system  or  theory  with  details  that  the 
earth  was  a  fixture  and  that  the  earth  was  the  center  of  the 
system;  that  the  sun  moved  around  the  earth,  and  this  is 
what  we  know  as  the  Ptolomaic  theory.  It  was  readily  ac- 
cepted by  churches,  as  it  agreed  with  the  Bible.  The  Bible 
tells  of  the  earth  standing  fast,  and  relates  at  length  that 
Joshua  asked  God  to  have  the  sun  stand  still,  that  he  might 
pursue  and  kill  more  of  the  enemy;  that  God  did  as  requested, 
and  of  Joshua's  success  while  the  sun  was  at  standstill. 
There  had  been  objections  before  this  by  Pythagoras  and 
others  to  this  Bible  theory,  but  the  Christian  world  accepted 
it  without  a  doubt  for  over  1,400  years.  Some  of  the  Chris- 
tian scholars  added  some  details,  but  the  main  idea  that  the 
earth  was  immovable  and  the  center  of  our  system,  and  that 
the  sun,  moon,  and  planets  moved  round  the  earth;  that  God 
could  and  did  stop  the  sun,  was  unquestioned  in  schools, 
churches,  and  by  the  people. 

In  the  }rear  1500  there  appeared  in  Rome  a  professor  of 
astronomy  named  Nicholas  Copernicus,  a  devout  Christian, 
and  who  died  so,  believing  himself  to  be  an  agent  of  God, 
always  protesting  that  the  truth  could  not  harm  religion.  He 
had  not  been  long  in  Eome  when  he  became  convinced  that 
the  earth  and  planets  moved  on  an  axis  of  their  own,  and 
that  they  moved  around  the  sun,  and  not  the  sun  around 
them.  It  is  not  known  that  he  taught  this  to  students,  but 
he  did  give  up  his  professorship  and  returned  to  his  native 
country  (Poland)  and  commenced  writing  his  book  on  the 
"  Heavenly  Bodies,"  firmly  convinced  that  he  was  inspired 
by  God.  After  writing  the  book  and  dedicating  it  to  the 
pope,  the  question  was  how  and  where  to  get  it  printed. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  57 

No  printer  in  Rome  dare  touch  it.  His  own  section  was  Pro- 
testant, and  the  printers  there  as  fearful  as  those  of  Rome. 
After  some  delay,  and  when  on  his  death-bed,  his  Protestant 
friend,  Oseander,  printed  the  book,  but  in  doing  so  Oseander, 
himself,  writes  a  degrading  apology  as  a  preface,  saying  this 
theory  was  only  a  supposition.  There  is  some  doubt  about 
Oopernicus  ever  seeing  this  apology,  as  he  was  certainly  dying 
at  the  time.  With  this  untruthful  preface,  the  book  was  not 
much  noticed  by  the  Catholic  church,  but  more  so  by  the 
Protestant.  Martin  Luther  says:  "People  give  ear  to  an 
upstart  astrologer  who  strives  to  show  that  the  earth  revolves, 
not  the  heavens  or  the  firmament,  the  sun  and  the  moon. 
This  fool  wishes  to  reverse  the  entire  science  of  astronomy; 
but  sacred  Scripture  tells  us  that  Joshua  commanded  the  sun 
to  stand  still,  and  not  the  earth."  For  several  years  this 
made  but  little  trouble  for  either  church. 

In  1609  came  Galileo  with  his  newly  discovered  telescope. 
Galileo  was  an  Italian,  a  professor  of  mathematics  in  Rome, 
and  his  rude  telescope  took  the  theories  of  Copernicus  out  of 
the  list  of  suppositions  and  placed  them  before  the  world  as 
demonstrated  truths,  and  here  began  that  long  and  bitter 
war  against  Galileo  and  his  discoveries  that  lasted  for  genera- 
tions, and  is  not  yet  over,  against  him,  personally.  The  sup- 
porters of  what  was  called  "  sound  learning/'  declared  his 
discoveries  deceptions,  and  his  announcements  blasphemy. 
Semi-scientific  professors  attacked  him  with  sham  science. 
Protestant  preachers,  more  talkative  of  the  two,  united  with 
Catholics  in  accusing  him  of  perverting  Scripture.  Theolo- 
gians, inquisitors,  congregations  of  cardinals,  and  at  last,  and 
most  important  of  all,  two  popes  dealt  with  him,  and,  it  was 
hoped,  silenced  his  impious  doctrine  forever,  Father  Clavius 
declaring  that  "  to  see  these  things,  men  had  to  make  an  in- 
strument which  would  create  them/'  The  details  of  what 
we  are  about  to  say  have  been  known  only  a  short  time.  The 
outline  of  the  persecution  of  Galileo  and  his  friends  are  not 
new,  but  the  personal  part  taken  by  Pope  Urban  has  been 
covered  up  until  eight  or  ten  years  ago.  Not  until  the  trial 


58       JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

documents  in  the  Vatican  library  were  honestly  printed  by 
L'Epnois  and  since  by  Gebler  and  others,  has  the  whole  truth 
come  to  light.  In  1610  Galileo's  telescope  showed  the  moons 
of  the  planet  Jupiter.  To  admit  this  was  to  admit  all  of  the 
Copernican  theory  claimed,  and  dispute  the  plain  reading  of 
the  Bible.  Shortly  after,  the  telescope  found  the  valleys  of 
our  own  moon,  and  that  our  moon  shines  only  by  light  re- 
flected from  the  sun,  notwithstanding  the  Bible  says  the  moon 
is  a  "  great  light/'  Then  Galileo  found  spots  on  the  sun,  and 
their  motion  indicated  the  sun's  rotation.  Nearly  all  of  the 
great  names  in  church  history  are  now  found  opposing  him. 
The  universities  are  forbidden  to  teach  or  discuss  the  new 
theory,  and  some  excuse  is  sought  to  bring  Galileo  before  the 
inquisition.  Even  personal  friends  were  asked  to  give  up  pri- 
vate letters  that  the  inquisition  might  get  him  as  a  heretic, 
and  these  friends,  refusing,  were  afterwards  severely  pun- 
ished. After  waiting  two  years  for  a  reasonable  excuse,  and 
finding  none,  excuse  or  no  excuse,  he  was,  in  1615,  summoned 
before  that  dreaded  tribunal,  the  inquisition  of  Eome.  A 
committee  of  theologians  of  the  inquisition  were  ordered  to 
examine  two  propositions  of  Galileo's  on  the  sun's  spots,  and 
after  solemnly  considering  these  points  for  a  month,  rendered 
their  unanimous  decision  as  follows:  "The  first  proposition 
that  the  sun  is  the  center  and  does  not  revolve  about  the  earth 
is  foolish,  absurd,  false  in  theology  and  heretical,  because  ex- 
pressly contrary  to  holy  Scriptures;  and  the  second  proposi- 
tion, that  the  earth  is  not  the  center,  but  revolves  about  the 
sun,  is  absurd,  false  in  philosophy,  and  from  a  theological 
point  of  view,  at  least,  opposed  to  the  true  faith."  Cardinal 
Bellarmin  shows  Galileo  the  error  of  his  opinion  and  orders 
him  to  renounce  it.  DeLanda,  fortified  by  a  letter  from  the 
pope  himself,  gives  orders  that  the  astronomer  be  placed  in 
the  dungeons  of  the  inquisition  should  he  refuse  to  yield,  and 
Bellarmin  commands  Galileo,  as  follows:  "In  the  name  of 
His  Holiness,  the  Pope,  and  the  whole  Congregation  of  the 
Holy  Office,  to  relinquish  altogether  the  opinion  that  the  sun 
is  the  center  of  the  World  and  immovable,  and  that  the  earth 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  50 

moves;  nor  henceforth  to  hold,  teach  or  defend  it  in  any  way 
whatsoever  verbally  or  in  writing."  This  injunction  Galileo* 
agrees  to,  and  promises  to  obey.  Some  writers  of  note  deny 
that  the  great  astronomer  agreed  to  this,  but  the  probabilities 
are  that  he  did,  as  he  well  knew  the  power  of  the  inquisition, 
and  that  even  then  it  was  burying  men  and  burning  their 
writings  for  heresy.  This  was  the  26th  of  February,  and 
fourteen  days  after,  Pope  Paul  V  solemnly  rendered  this  de- 
cree: "  The  doctrine  of  the  double  motion  of  the  earth  about 
its  axis  and  about  the  sun  is  false,  and  entirely  contrary  to* 
holy  Scripture."  With  this  decree  science  had  apparently 
lost,  forever,  a  decisive  battle.  For  several  years  Galileo  re- 
tired to  Florence,  still  working,  but  publishing  nothing  except 
letters  to  personal  friends.  In  1623  Urban  VIII  became  pope. 
As  a  cardinal,  Urban  seemed  liberal  and  fair,  and  evidently 
was  so  at  first.  From  Galileo's  personal  knowledge  of  the  new 
pope,  he  let  his  views  become  known  again.  The  pope  in- 
vited him  to  Rome  and  personally  tried  to  show  him  that  he^ 
was  in  error.  That  he  remained  friendly  for  a  while  is  shown 
by  the  pope's  permission  for  Galileo  to  print  his  new  book, 
"  The  Dialogue,"  with  the  provision  that  the  preface  be 
written  by  the  master  of  the  sacred  palace,  in  which  Galileo's 
theory  was  exhibited  as  a  play  of  the  imagination,  and  not 
at  all  opposed  to  the  Bible.  The  new  book  was  a  great  suc- 
cess. The  pious  preface  was  laughed  at  by  every  one  not 
owned  by  the  church,  and  here  occurred  one  of  those  events 
whose  far-reaching  effects  cannot  be  foreseen.  From  a 
friend,  Pope  Urban  became  a  most  bitter  enemy,  and  took 
personal  charge  of  suppressing  Galileo  and  his  works.  The 
pope  was  not  only  pope,  but  a  prince  of  blood,  and  Galileo  in 
his  book  repeats  the  arguments  used  by  Urban,  and  puts 
their  refutation  into  the  mouth  of  another.  This  touched 
the  personal  vanity  of  the  pope,  who  completely  lost  his  tem- 
per. Had  he  controlled  his  temper  enough  to  cover  up  hi& 
personal  feelings,  or  allowed  the  Protestant  church  to  carry 
on  the  fight,  as  it  was  only  too  willing  to  do,  the  Catholic 
Church  would  not  be  apologizing,  disputing,  and  denying- 


60       JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

-even  up  to  this  day  for  the  greatest  of  all  scandals.  To  fully 
xealize  this  scandal,  we  must  bear  in  mind  always  that  the 
•supreme  authority  in  the  Catholic  church  is  the  church, — 
not  the  Bible,  not  Christ,  not  the  Virgin  Mary,  but  always  the 
<church,  and  as  its  prime  mouthpiece,  the  infallibility  of  the 
pope  is  as  essential  as  Christ  is  to  the  Protestant  religion. 
For  saying  publicly,  "  Nothing  that  can  be  done  now  can 
binder  the  truth."  Cardinal  Castilli  was  dismissed  in  dis- 
grace, and  Galileo  once  more  summoned  before  the  inquisi- 
tion without  a  defender  or  adviser.  There,  as  is  now  fully 
revealed,  he  was  menaced  with  torture  again  and  again  by 
the  express  order  of  Pope  Urban,  and,  as  now  thoroughly  es- 
tablished by  the  trial  documents,  themselves,  forced  to  ab- 
jure under  threats,  and  subjected  to  actual  imprisonment  by 
popish  orders,  the  inquisition  deferring  the  whole  matter  of 
the  papal  authority,  and  Galileo,  with  threats  equivalent  to 
torture,  was  at  last  forced  to  pronounce  publicly  and  on  his 
knees  his  recantation  as  follows:  "I,  Galileo,  being  in  my 
seventieth  year,  being  a  prisoner,  and  on  my  knees,  and  be- 
fore your  Eminences,  having  before  my  eyes  the  Holy  Gospel 
which  I  touch  with  my  hands,  abjure,  curse  and  detest  the  er- 
ror and  heresy  of  the  movement  of  the  earth."  Christian  writ- 
ers would  belittle  Galileo  because  he  perjured  himself  but  only 
a  short  time  before  Brono  was  publicly  burned  alive  for  defy- 
ing the  church  with  philosophical  heresies;  and  eight  years 
before  Archbishop  of  Spalatro  died  in  a  dungeon,  his  body 
and  writings  burned  in  public.  As  it  was,  even  after  the  re- 
cantation, Galileo  was  kept  in  exile  from  his  family  and 
friends.  When,  with  old  age,  disease  and  mental  suffering, 
he  asked  for  some  little  liberty,  he  was  threatened  with  com- 
mittal to  a  dungeon.  At  last  he  became  blind,  and  although 
wasted  by  disease  and  sorrow,  he  was  closely  watched  to  his 
•dying  day.  And  this  was  the  great  church  victory  over  a 
demonstrated  truth,  and  what  a  victory!  It  is  worth  more 
than  a  passing  thought.  In  those  days  the  church  ruled  the 
world,  and  contained  pretty  much  all  the  brains,  but  it 
thought  it  could  crush  out  a  fact,  the  main  points  being  as 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  61 

well  demonstrated  as  they  are  to-day.  From  that  day  to  this 
the  church  has  denied  and  explained,  but  if  one  single  in- 
stance can  be  found  for  one  hundred  years  after,  where  a 
school,  a  college,  or  a  university  taught  this  theory,  it  would 
be  a  boon  to  both  churches  and  an  important  addition  to 
history. 

In  leaving  the  Old  Testament,  we  have  considered  the  four 
most  important  questions  of  evidence.  It  makes  no  differ- 
ence that  the  churches  now  assist  each  other  in  showing  their 
falsity.  They  never  admitted  it  until  they  were  obliged  to; 
but  what  interests  us  is  that  they  have  been  proven,  beyond 
a  doubt,  to  be  untrue.  It  shows  that  Bible  makers  borrowed 
or  guessed  at  things  older  than  themselves,  and  it  shows  that 
no  all-knowing  being  or  God  could  inspire  such  a  book.  These, 
and  numberless  other  mistakes,  have  come  so  rapidly  that  one 
cannot  predict  for  a  day  what  the  next  startling  blow  will  be. 
The  childish  excuses  of  religious  papers  and  magazines  is  a 
reflection  on  a  bright  child  of  fifteen  years  of  age.  The  Pro- 
testant church  really  is  dead,  but  is  outwardly  held  together 
by  its  immense  wealth.  So  long  as  there  is  any  money  left, 
it  will  find  ministers  and  followers.  The  New  York  Sun,  one 
of  the  few  dailies  to  open  its  columns  to  all  sides  of  this  dis- 
cussion, says  editorially  that  the  day  is  not  far  distant  when 
it  must  be  decided  whether  the  Bible  is  inspired  or  not.  Of 
the  Bible  itself,  it  is  not  worth  reading.  It  is  made  up  of 
untruthful  ancient  history,  of  a  more  or  less  connected  and 
more  or  less  correct  history  of  the  Jews.  The  authorship  of 
nearly  all  of  it  is  unknown.  The  Catholic  Bible  has  more 
books  than  the  Protestant.  There  are  many  very  good  say- 
ings; many  very  bad;  many  very  childish;  far  too  many  that 
are  very  cruel,  and  still  more  that  are  senseless.  It  is  quite 
a  strain  on  our  confidence  when  our  fellow-men  say  they  be- 
lieve in  the  God  Moses  is  supposed  to  tell  about  in  the  four- 
teenth chapter  of  Numbers.  The  Christian  world  should 
start  at  once  and  dig  up  the  soul  of  Moses,  and  say  to  him, 
"You  old  rascal,  re-write  this  chapter,  and  do  it  quick,  or,, 
regardless  of  the  price  of  coal  and  wood,  we  will  start  a  real 
hell  and  in  it  your  soul  shall  toast  forever  and  a  day." 


62       JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

This  brings  us  to  the  New  Testament,,  or,  what  interests  us, 
to  the  discussion  of  Christ  and  him  crucified.  Of  course,  if 
it  can  be  shown  that  this  man  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin, 
performed  miracles,  arose  bodily  from  the  dead,  then  it  is  not 
necessary  for  us  to  admit  that  he  was  a  great  power,  and  no 
matter  how  many  Gods  had  come  and  gone  before  him,  he 
would  show  a  power  by  which  his  followers  could- justly  claim 
that  he  can  control  our  lives  and  destinies,  that  would  entitle 
him  to  be  called  a  God.  We  say  if  these  can  reasonably  be 
be  proven,  but  we  shall  show  that  every  one  of  the  points  of 
proof,  not  a  part  of  them,  but  every  single  one,  were  manu- 
factured by  designing  men  at  least  one  hundred  years  after 
Christ  was  dead,  and  we  believe  this  to  be  worth  close  atten- 
tion. The  actual  knowledge  of  Jesus  Christ;  of  his  move- 
ments, and  of  what  he  said  is  very  meager.  He  was  born  in 
Syria,  of  very  poor  and  very  low  grade,  of  Jewish  parents, 
and  followed  the  trade  of  a  carpenter  until  about  thirty  years 
of  age.  At  that  time  he  started  out  as  a  religious  reformer. 
From  what  little  is  known  of  his  preaching,  he  and  his 
followers  catered  only  to  the  poorest  and  most  degraded  ele- 
ments of  society.  The  rich  were  denounced  because  they 
were  rich.  The  slaves  in  bondage,  then  so  numerous,  were 
catered  to,  promised  an  eternal  life,  and  socially  recognized 
at  all  their  meetings.  After  less  than  four  years  of  preaching 
he  had  so  large  a  following  that  the  authorities  thought  him 
dangerous,  and  he  was  killed,  but  they  could  not  kill  his  fol- 
lowing; he  had  promised  too  many  good  things  to  those  who 
accepted  the  meek  and  lowly  Jesus.  The  most  ignorant  and 
vicious  of  human  beings  became  church  leaders,  with  titles 
of  bishops  and  archbishops.  In  the  three  or  four  years  of 
talking,  Christ  must  have  said  something  his  followers  would 
remember,  and  shortly  after  his  death  different  Christians  and 
church  authorities  started  in  to  write  up  Christ  and  his  say- 
ings. Many  of  these  writings  are  lost  altogether,  and  we 
know  of  them  only  by  other  writers  referring  to  them.  Nearly 
all  are  incomplete,  but  there  are  extant  a  part  or  the  whole  of 
about  ninety  of  these  gospels  or  epistles.  Most  of  these  were 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  63 

written  not  long  after  the  death  of  Christ,  and  doubtless  con- 
tain considerable  truth;  but  none  of  them  are  in  the  New 
Testament  as  we  have  it,  although  all  of  them  have  been  rec- 
ognized at  different  times.  St.  Paul,  a  Jew,  a  few  years  af- 
ter the  death  of  Christ,  became  a  Christian,  and  wrote  and 
talked  a  great  deal.  Paul  wrote  some  epistles  and  they  are 
in  the  New  Testament.  They  were  written  somewhere  be- 
tween the  years  forty  and  sixty-seven,  as  he  died  in  that  year. 
These  epistles  are  considered  genuine  by  scholars,  and  are  the 
only  things  in  the  New  Testament  that  are  handed  down  to 
us  as  they  were  originally  prepared.  How  important  it  is  to 
bear  in  mind  that  Paul's  writings  were  really  his,  and  must 
have  been  written  not  long  after  the  death  of  Christ,  will  be 
understood  directly  when  we  show  what  he  did  not  say.  St. 
Paul  lived  and  wrote  shortly  after  the  death  of  Christ,  and  he 
would  be  certain  to  know  and  speak  of  the  great  events  in  the 
earthly  life  of  a  Son  of  God.  We  shall  see  whether  he  did  or 
not.  For  150  years  after  Christ,  the  church  drifted,  one 
neighborhood  using  one  gospel,  another  another,  until,  not 
earlier  than  the  year  125,  somebody,  somewhere,  got  together 
and  compiled  what  we  know  as  the  four  synoptic  gospels, 
Matthew,  Mark,  Luke,  and  John.  By  synoptic  is  meant  the 
part  of  the  New  Testament  that  is  authority  for  all  the  rest, 
the  other  books  being  for  reading  and  instruction,  but  the 
first  four  are  the  basis  of  faith  in  all  cases.  The  claim  of  the 
dying  church  is  that  because  the  four  gospels  contain  many 
things  copied  from  older  books,  the  whole  are  genuine.  This 
would  be  a  fair  and  legitimate  claim  if  the  books  were  a  copy, 
but  they  are  not.  All  of  the  essential  points  were  added  100 
or  more  years  after  the  man  said  to  have  performed  them 
was  dead  and  buried.  For  here,  for  the  first  time,  we  hear 
that  Christ  was  born  of  a  virgin;  for  here,  for  the  first  time, 
we  hear  that  Christ  performed  miracles;  for  the  first  time, 
we  hear  that  Christ  was  resurrected  bodily  from  the  dead; 
and  here  comes  the  crushing  statement  that  Paul,  Paul  who 
talked  and  preached  for  years,  Paul,  who  discussed  everything 
and  everybody,  never  knew  that  Mary,  the  mother  of  Jesus, 


64      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

was  a  virgin.  Paul  never  heard  that  Christ  fed  a  multitude 
with  a  few  loaves  and  a  few  fish.  Paul  never  heard  that 
Christ  came  forth  from  his  grave  a  live,  walking  body.  But,, 
gentlemen,  Paul  wrote  at  the  time,  and  no  matter  how  anx- 
ious he  was  to  serve  his  Lord,  he  dare  not  manufacture  mira- 
cles so  near  the  time  and  so  near  home.  But  these  New  Tes- 
tament falsehoods  our  parents  and  our  grandparents  lived 
and  died  believing  to  be  sacred  truths.  Let  the  Christian 
world  produce  one  proof,  not  manufactured  one  hundred  year& 
after  it  is  said  to  have  occurred,  that  Christ  walked  on  water,, 
or  raised  the  dead,  or  performed  any  other  miracles.  Let  it 
produce  one  proof  -that  the  mother  of  Christ  was  a  virgin. 
Let  it  produce  one  proof  that  his  body  was  restored  to  life. 
The  church  has  not  done  it,  and  without  the  proof  what  is 
there  left  of  Christ  that  should  lead  us  to  believe  that  he  was 
an  all-powerful  God.  There  isn't  a  minister,  there  isn't  a 
priest,  that  would  not  sacrifice  years  of  time  and  research  to 
be  able  to  produce  evidence  that  would  establish  even  one  of 
these  things,  and  without  them,  immaculate  conception,  mira- 
cles and  bodily  resurrection,  Christ  becomes  what  he  really 
was,  a  religious  agitator.  There  were  many  before  him  claim- 
ing to  be  divinely  inspired,  and  there  have  been  many  since. 
All  frauds  and  mostly  short-lived. 

Now,  for  SL  moment,  let  us  consider  the  situation,  as  men 
capable  of  using  our  reason.  We  can  dimly  realize  the  vast- 
ness  of  the  universe,  very  faintly,  it  is  true,  but  enough  to 
know  that  it  is  beyond  our  comprehension,  and  we  grasp 
something  of  what  a  creator,  or  power,  or  God,  had  to  do- 
when  he  made  all  this  universe  out  of  nothing.  A  few  weeks 
ago  Astronomer  Elkin  announced  to  the  world  that  the  star 
or  sun  Arcturus  is  twelve  million  times  as  far  from  the  earth 
as  our  sun.  Our  sun's  mean  distance  from  the  earth  is  nine- 
ty-three millions  of  miles.  If  our  sun  were  as  far  away  as  is 
Arcturus,  it  would  not  be  visible  at  all  with  an  opera  glass. 
He  says,  therefore,  that  Arcturus  is  6,000  times  as  bright  as 
our  sun,  and  he  assumes  the  same  density  and  brightness  of 
surface  as  our  sun,  making  the  diameter  of  Arcturus  seventy- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  65 

nine  times  our  sun's  diameter,  or  over  sixty-eight  million 
miles,  and  its  mass  about  five  hundred  thousand  times  the 
mass  of  our  sun.  Nobody  thinks  for  a  moment  that  Arc- 
turus  is  the  end  of  space,  but  the  figures  stagger  our  imagina- 
tion. From  things  immensely  great,  science  is  unable,  with 
its  present  magnifying  glasses,  to  say  how  minutely  small  na- 
ture has  divided  matter.  We  all  know  something  of  the  abil- 
ity of  machine  shops  to  test  a  machine  within  one  ten-thou- 
sandth of  an  inch,  but  science  can  take  a  globule  and  sub- 
divide not  only  into  thousands  and  millions  of  parts,  but  into 
billions  of  distinct  formations,  and  a  globule  is  a  small  drop, 
smaller  than  a  sugur-coated  pill,  and  we  are  asked  to  believe 
that  a  God  with  power  to  create  a  universe  of  the  immense 
things  and  equally  minute  things,  first  revealed  himself  to  a 
very  small  part  of  mankind  6,000  years  ago,  that  his  whole 
career  was  one  of  childishness,  of  extreme  jealousy,  of  con- 
stant fear  that  people  would  worship  some  other  God.  He 
devotes  his  time  to  following  the  fortunes  of  a  few  wander- 
ing people,  encouraging  war,  and  directly  advising  and  as- 
sisting in  those  wars,  and  then,  with  all  this  vast  universe  to 
look  after,  overshadows  an  extremely  ordinary  Jewish  girl, 
who  produces  a  son;  this  son,  reared  among  the  lowest  people 
of  Syria,  remains  thirty  years  in  obscurity,  then  preaches  from 
one  to  four  years.  This  God  allows  this  Son  to  believe  that 
the  devil  owns  the  earth,  as  it  is  said  he  talked  seriously  with 
Satan  as  to  whether  he  should  follow  him  or  God.  After 
this  Son  is  crucified,  he  is  in  a  few  days  taken  to  a  place  called 
Heaven,  and  from  that  time  out  is  the  only  mediator  through 
which  human  beings  can  hope  for  mercy.  For  many  cen- 
turies this  God  and  his  Son  are  heard  of  only  in  countries 
within  a  few  hundred  miles  of  the  Mediterranean  sea.  Bil- 
lions live  and  die  in  Northern  Europe,  Eastern  Asia,  South- 
ern Africa,  and  the  whole  of  America  without  ever  hearing  of 
Jehovah  or  Christ.  Since  1500  this  Bible  God  has  lost  all 
foothold  in  Asia  and  in  Africa.  In  the  promised  land  there 
is  no  longer  fighting  between  the  Crescent  and  the  Cross. 
The  cross  has  been  lowered  to  the  earth,  never  to  rise  again. 
5 


66      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

In  its  place  waves  the  Crescent  of  Mohammed,  and  six  times 
every  day  the  faithful  say:  "  There  is  but  one  God  and  Al- 
lah is  his  prophet."  But  we  are  asked  to  believe  in  this  Bible 
God,  and  no  doubt  many  of  you  do  believe  in  him,  and 
your  children  may  believe  in  him,  but  your  children's  chil- 
dren will  not  believe  in  him. 

In  discussing  the  Bible,  we  have  left  by  far  the  most  im- 
portant issue  to  be  considered  last.  There  must  have  been  an 
"  exceeding  glad  "  feeling  come  over  the  ordinary  Christian 
when,  only  eight  or  ten  years  ago,  the  Protestant  churches 
began  to  give  up  hell.  Now  all  have  given  it  up.  They 
say  hell  does  not  mean  a  place  of  torture  and  endless  punish- 
ment, but  means  simply  a  final  stopping  place  for  the  dead. 
We,  here  in  New  Hampshire,  recall  the  ridicule  that  sprang 
up  among  the  Protestant  churches  when  a  society  came  be- 
fore the  public  under  the  name  of  Universalists,  claiming  that 
everybody  would  eventually  be  saved.  The  other  churches 
attempted  to  crush  them  by  hurling  at  them  such  passages 
as  Matthew,  18th  chapter,  "  It  is  better  for  thee  to  enter  into 
life  halt  or  maimed,  rather  than  having  two  hands  or  two 
feet  to  be  cast  into  everlasting  fire."  "See  Mark  9:43,  and 
Luke  3:7,  "0  generation  of  vipers,  who  hath  warned  you 
to  flee  from  the  wrath  to  come."  Or,  "Who  shall  be  pun- 
ished with  everlasting  destruction  from  the  presence  of  the 
Lord,  and  from  the  glory  of  his  power."  In  church  history, 
in  the  bitter  controversies  between  the  eastern  and  western 
churches,  they  fully  agreed  on  the  subject  of  future  punish- 
ment in  hell;  in  the  belief  that  the  punishment  was  end- 
less, and  this  belief,  in  the  strict  sense  of  the  word,  was  al- 
ways recognized  as  a  common  doctrine  of  both.  There  is 
another  word  translated  Gehenna  (See  Math.  5:22,  29,  30), 
that  is  never  found  in  any  other  significance  than  that  of  a 
place  of  punishment  of  the  sinner  after  death.  The  above 
extract  is  taken  almost  bodily  from  Chambers'  Encyclopedia. 
Jonathan  Edwards,  of  whom  the  Encyclopedia  Britannica 
speaks  of  as  being  one  of  the  greatest  of  theologians — and  en- 
cyclopedias do  not  use  the  word  "greatest"  without  some 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  67 

reason — has  this  cheerful  message  (taken  from  a  sermon  by 
Jonathan  Edwards  on  "  The  sinner  in  the  hands  of  an  angry 
God."):  "There  is  nothing  that  keeps  wicked  men  at  any 
one  moment  out  of  hell  but  the  mere  pleasure  of  God.  By 
the  mere  pleasure  of  God,  I  mean  His  sovereign  pleasure,  His 
arbitrary  will,  restrained  by  no  obligation,  hindered  by  no 
manner  of  difficulty,  any  more  than  if  nothing  else  but  God's 
mere  will,  had  in  the  least  degree,  or  in  any  respect  whatso- 
ever, any  hand  in  the  preservation  of  wicked  men  one  moment. 

"  The  pit  is  prepared,  the  fire  is  made  ready,  the  furnace 
is  now  hot,  ready  to  receive  the  wicked;  the  flames  do  now 
rage  and  glow.  The  glittering  sword  is  whetted  and  held 
over  them,  and  the  pit  hath  opened  its  mouth  under  them. 
The  great  part  of  those  who  heretofore  have 
lived  under  the  same  means  of  grace,  and  are  now  dead,  are 
undoubtedly  gone  to  hell. 

"  The  bow  of  God's  wrath  is  bent,  and  the  arrow  made 
ready  on  the  string;  and  justice  directs  the  arrow  to  your 
heart,  and  strains  the  bow,  and  it  is  nothing  but  the  mere 
pleasure  of  God,  and  that  of  an  angry  God,  without  any 
premise  or  obligation  at  all,  that  keeps  the  arrow  one  mo- 
ment from  being  made  drunk  with  your  blood. 

"  The  God  that  holds  you  over  the  pit  of  hell,  much  in  the 
same  way  that  one  holds  a  spider,  or  some  loathsome  insect 
over  the  fire,  abhors  you,  and  is  dreadfully  provoked;  his 
wrath  towards  you  burns  like  fire;  he  looks  upon  you  as 
worthy  of  nothing  else  but  to  be  cast  into  the  fire;  he  is  of 
purer  eyes  than  to  bear  to  have  you  in  his  sight;  you  are  ten 
thousand  times  more  abominable  in  his  eyes  than  the  most 
hateful  venomous  serpent  is  in  ours.  .  .  .  You  hang  by  a 
slender  thread,  with  the  flames  of  divine  wrath  flashing  about 
it,  and  ready  every  moment  to  singe  it,  and  burn  it  asunder. 

"  If  you  cry  to  God  to  pity  you,  he  will  be  so  far  from  pity- 
ing you  in  your  doleful  case,  or  showing  you  the  least  regard 
or  favor,  that,  instead  of  that,  he  will  only  tread  you  under 
foot;  and  though  he  will  know  that  you  cannot  bear  the 
weight  of  Omnipotence  treading  upon  you,  yet  he  will  not  re- 


68      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

gard  that,  but  he  will  crush  you  under  his  feet  without  mer- 
cy; he  will  crush  out  your  blood  and  make  it  fly,  and  it  shall 
be  sprinkled  on  his  garments,  so  as  to  stain  all  his  raiment. 
He  will  not  only  hate  you,  but  he  will  have  you  in  the  ut- 
most contempt;  no  place  shall  be  thought  fit  for  you  but  un- 
der his  feet,  to  be  trodden  down  as  the  mire  of  the  streets." 

Just  what  has  been  done  or  will  be  done  with  the  many 
billions  of  human  beings  who  have  roasted  all  these  years 
in  hell,  the  church  has  not  yet  decided,  but  you  Christians 
ought  to  contribute  twice  to  every  contribution  box,  and  hug 
yourselves  with  thankfulness  that  you  lived  beyond  1890, 
when  hell  was  abandoned,  although  it  is  probable  that  most 
of  your  ancestors  are  still  wheeling  brimstone  over  red  hot 
fire-coals, — all  because  they  w^ere  born  a  few  years  too  soon. 
This  closes  our  review  of  the  Bible  God  and  His  reputed  Son, 
and  we  wish  to  speak  briefly  of  immortality  and  then  of 
the  churches  of  the  present  day.  But  "brief  as  we  may 
be  on  immortality,  or  conscious  life  after  death,  it  will 
be  much  longer  than  any  immortality  you  will  ever  real- 
ize. Immortality  has  been  the  dream  of  sentimental  peo- 
ple, of  disappointed  people,  and  of  disordered  brains.  The 
words,  "immortal  soul,"  like  Heaven  and  hell,  are  very 
useful  in  religion,  but  are  in  fact  pure  imagination.  Im- 
mortality has  been  promised  by  all  the  later-day  religions 
to  those  only  too  willing  to  believe  it,  but  there  is  not  the 
slightest  evidence  or  probability  that  it  is  true.  The  prob- 
abilities are  all  against  it.  The  seat  of  intelligence,  the 
brain,  depends  wholly  on  life  in  the  body.  Through  all 
these  years  of  speculation,  no  evidence  appears  that  there  is 
the  slightest  consciousness  after  death.  The  Christian  rises 
up  and,  pointing  to  an  Edison  or  a  Darwin,  says,  "  Is  that 
great  intellect  to  die,  to  decay,  and  disapppear?"  We  should 
say  it  would.  If  we  listen  to  a  special  plea  like  this,  we  must 
consider  the  whole  human  race,  and,  considering  only  what 
are  now  living,  taking  everybody,  from  hot  climates  to  cold, 
we  find  the  general  intelligence  very  low.  The  great  bulk  in 
habits  and  in  intellect  are  not  much  above  what  we  call  ani- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  69 

mals,  inferior  in  many  things,  and  superior  only  because  they 
have  organs  of  speech.  If  it  seems  wrong  to  bury  in  the 
grave  the  intellect  of  Webster,  what  is  there  worth  saving 
about  the  common  herd?  Science  explains  to  us  that  the 
formation  of  the  brains  of  animals  is  the  same  as  that  of  hu- 
man beings;  that  at  death  both  decay,  separate  into  their  ele- 
ments, dissipate  in  the  air,  and  help  to  form  the  brains  of 
some  other  human  being  or  animal.  Were  there  truth  in  im- 
mortality, it  seems  to  force  the  conclusion  that  animals,  too, 
have  an  immortal  life. 

But  there  is  no  conscious  life  beyond  the  grave.  If  our 
death  be  natural,  it  will  come  without  hope  or  fear.  Death 
is  but  the  wasting  away  of  our  vitality.  As  it  approaches  our 
desire  will  be  for  sleep.  We  will  not  know  just  when  it 
comes,  but  it  will  be  welcome  just  the  same,  and  as  the  real 
Goddess,  the  Goddess  of  endless  sleep,  extends  her  arms  for 
the  last  time,  our  thoughts  will  be,  not  on  immortality,  not 
on  future  punishment,  but  on  an  eternal  rest. 

In  discussing  our  last  subject,  the  churches  of  the  present 
day,  we  regret  to  note  that  many  infidels  and  atheists  can  see 
no  good  in  churches,  because  the  ground-work  has  been 
shown  to  be  a  humbug.  But,  in  taking  this  position,  infidels 
and  atheists  only  belittle  themselves.  In  the  church  is  found 
most  of  our  best  people!  It  would  be  foolish  to  deny  it,  and 
it  would  not  make  a  particle  of  difference  with  the  fact,  if  we 
did  deny  it.  As  young  people  grow  up,  they  are  told  that  all 
that  is  good,  all  that  is  upright,  all  that  is  honest,  comes  from 
or  is  connected  with  religion,  and  those  that  are  naturally 
good  are  drawn  toward  church  society  and  influence,  and  the 
influence  to-day  is  certainly  uplifting,  and  their  ambitions  in 
life  take  a  higher  level.  We  do  not  agree  with  infidels  that 
note  with  glee  that  some  minister  or  prominent  church  mem- 
ber has  gone  wrong.  The  few  black  sheep  do  not  count. 
The  average  minister  has  a  sincere  desire  to  make  people  bet- 
ter and  happier.  There  is  more  to  a  minister's  life  than 
drawing  his  salary  and  taking  vacations,  and  the  church  is 
evoluting  as  fast  as  desirable.  It  has  given  up  almost  every- 


70      JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

thing  objectionable.  It  has  doubts  of  the  usefulness  of  pray- 
er. It  has  discarded  hell.  The  Unitarian  church,  which 
has  been  on  all  sides  of  these  great  questions,  does  not  now 
hamper  its  ministers  or  its  members  with  any  sort  of  belief. 
Its  services  are  mostly  lectures,  many  of  them  instructive 
and  entertaining.  All  of  the  Protestant  churches  are  to-day, 
not  religious  orders,  but  social  societies,  and  the  social  fea- 
tures are  most  commendable.  Here  women  meet  and  ob- 
serve their  friends  and  acquaintances.  They  learn  how  oth- 
ers do  and  act,  and  if  they  are  pleasant  people  themselves, 
they  always  find  plenty  of  other  pleasant  people.  We  trust 
there  are  no  infidels  or  atheists  who  deny  their  family  the 
society  of  churches.  If  there  are  any  such,  no  matter  what 
their  education  may  be,  they  are  narrow-minded,  and  evolu- 
tion has  not  yet  done  its  work. 

The  great  nuisance  of  the  Protestant  church  is  its  profes- 
sional begging.  Its  constant  whine  is  "  Money,  money,  mon- 
ey." The  contribution  box  is  everywhere  and  at  all  times. 
The  condition  of  a  family  is  seldom  considered.  If  a  family 
can  keep  away  from  the  poor  house  and  attend  church,  it 
must  give  and  give.  But  these  matters  will  adjust  them- 
selves. The  Protestant  church  will  shortly  combine  and  be- 
come one  huge  social  society.  Praying  will  cease  altogether. 
Sermons  will  be  practical  lectures,  and  the  name  of  God  sel- 
dom heard.  The  Catholic  church  is  still  a  great  power,  and 
will  be  long  after  the  very  name  of  Protestant  has  been  for- 
gotten. Its  military  discipline,  its  great  wisdom  in  its  abso- 
lute refusal  to  argue  disputed  points,  its  insistence  that  the 
church  and  not  the  Bible  is  the  real  authority,  hold  it  to- 
gether with  a  generalship  that  Protestants  now  admit,  but 
saw  too  late.  When  a  Catholic  thinks  his  church  is  wrong  he 
does  not  kick  or  start  another  church,  but  gives  up  churches 
altogether.  The  church  ignores  him  and  devotes  itself  to 
suckers  that  never  kick.  The  great  wrong  of  the  Catholic 
church  to-day  is  its  nunneries,  but  they  are  happily  growing 
less  and  their  inmates  fewer.  The  nunnery  buries  for  life 
the  brightest  and  healthiest  of  its  young  women.  Before 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  71 

they  are  old  enough  to  know  or  realize  what  they  are  doing, 
they  accept  a  life  of  sacrifice,,  believing  that  their  sacrifice  is 
preparing  them  for  a  life  of  endless  happiness.  As  one  meets 
these  nuns  on  the  street,  and  notes  their  white  faces  and  ema- 
ciated forms,,  he  feels  a  weakness  in  his  legs,  as  though  he 
would  like  to  lean  against  a  fence,  all  the  time  thinking  to 
himself  what  a  God-damned  humbug  this  whole  religion  is. 

And  this  ends  our  story.  It  is  only  proper  to  say  that  our 
argument  for  Atheism  is  taken  from  Buchner's  "  Force  and 
Matter."  Our  facts  about  Christ  from  Judge  C.  B.  Waite's 
"  History  of  the  Christian  Religion  to  the  year  200;"  and  our 
account  of  Galileo,  much  of  it  bodily,  from  Andrew  D. 
"White's  "  History  of  the  Warfare  of  Science  with  Theology." 
Andrew  D.  White  was  for  years  president  of  Cornell  univer- 
sity. At  the  time  of  writing  this  book,  he  was  our  minister 
to  Russia,  and  has  only  within  a  few  weeks  resigned  from  the 
position  of  United  States  minister  to  Germany.  These,  with 
our  gratefulness  to  the  Century  Dictionary  and  the  encyclo- 
pedias, are  authorities  that  are  so  far  unimpeached. 

Those  of  you  who  are  so  full  of  superstition  that  you  be- 
lieve that  any  new  undertaking  begun  on  Friday  will  be  a 
failure  will  profit  little  by  this  address,  and  we  assure  you, — 
and  we  say  it  kindly, — Atheism  does  not  want  you.  Atheism 
is  progressing  fully  as  fast  as  intelligence  is  progressing.  Af- 
ter all  superstition  is  dead  it  will  be  popular,  but  until  that 
time,  the  only  converts  it  wants,  or  will  tolerate,  are  those 
who  study  the  question  and  draw  their  conclusions  from  facts 
and  not  from  faith. 

With  Atheism  comes  a  perfect  contentment.  A  perfect 
happiness  that  we  believe  no  religion  can  ever  furnish.  It 
teaches  us  to  live  one  life  at  a  time.  It  is  the  only  complete 
and  permanent  cure  for  nervousness  and  it  teaches  us  that 
every  man  owes  his  success  and  happiness  in  life  largely  to 
himself,  and  that  no  supernatural  agency  can  help  him  or 
harm  him. 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — Before  the  fifth  article  is  dis- 


72      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

posed  of,  and  while  acting  upon  it,  I  wish  to  make  a  motion; 
that  the  word  "  subject  "  should  be  stricken  out  and  the  word 
"  citizen  "  should  be  substituted  in  its  place. 

The  Chairman — Article  six  is  now  in  order.  Mr.  Everett 
of  Nashua  began  his  remarks  prematurely. 

(Article  six  read  by  the  clerk.) 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  suggest  that  the  proposed  amend- 
ment be  now  read,  in  order  that  the  delegates  may  compare 
the  two  and  have  them  thoroughly  in  their  minds. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — Will  the  gentleman  from  Bow 
yield  for  a  question?  I  think  it  would  be  useful  if  the  gen- 
tleman stated  in  a  general  way  how  far  he  changes  the  gen- 
eral phraseology  of  section  six,  as  the  members  have  not  had 
the  opportunity  to  compare  the  proposed  amendment  with 
section  six.  I  suppose  the  substantial  thing  in  the  amend- 
ment is  to  strike  out  the  word  "  evangelical "  in  the  first  part 
of  article  six,  and  the  word  "  Protestant "  in  the  last  line 
of  the  same  paragraph.  While  all  concede  that  these  expres- 
sions are  objectionable  many  feel  that  we  should  adhere  as  far 
as  possible  to  the  general  phraseology  of  our  forefathers, 
and  I  think  it  would  be  convenient  to  the  members  of  the 
convention  if  the  gentleman  should  state  how  far  he  departs 
from  the  general  phraseology  of  article  six. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — In  response  to  the  request  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Littleton,  I  have  to  say,  that  the  substance  of 
article  six,  with  the  exceptions  which  he  has  detailed,  are  re- 
tained; very  much  of  the  language  is  retained.  The  word 
<e  evangelical "  and  the  word  "  Protestant "  are  entirely 
dropped  out.  I  think  it  is  now  the  general  wish  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  that  there  should  be  no 
suggestion  of  partiality  in  our  Constitution.  As  article  six 
now  reads,  the  several  towns  are  authorized,  or  rather  the  leg- 
islature may  authorize  the  several  towns,  to  employ  clergymen 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  73 

or  teachers  of  piety,  as  termed  in  article  six,  and  taxes  may 
be  assessed  to  pay  the  salaries  of  these  clergymen;  but  it  also 
provides  that  they  shall  not  compel  anybody  to  pay  towards 
the  support  of  such  teachers  of  any  religion  in  which  they  do 
not  believe. 

That  part  has  been  entirely  omitted  in  my  proposed  substi- 
tute because  I  apprehend  that  there  is  no  desire  on  the  part 
of  anybody  at  this  time  that  there  should  be  any  taxation 
whatever  in  regard  to  religious  matters.  That  is  the  only 
change  at  that  point. 

I  have  added  one  or  two  clauses  here,  which  are  not  in  the 
Constitution  at  all  as  it  stands.  One  of  those  is,  that  no  pub- 
lic money  or  property  shall  be  appropriated  for  the  use  of  any 
religious  society,  sect,  or  denomination,  or  the  support  of  any 
religious  establishment.  I  think  you  are  all  agreed  on  that. 
The  other  provision  is  with  reference  to  religious  test  as  a 
qualification  for  office. 

(Reads  proposed  amendment.) 

My  purpose  has  been,  gentlemen,  to  divest  the  government 
of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  from  any  suspicion  of  favor- 
ing one  denomination  more  than  any  other,  or  leaving  the 
legislature  any  authority  whatever  to  favor  one  society  rather 
than  another.  I  am  ready  to  answer  any  question. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — "Will  the  gentleman  permit  me 
again?  I  do  not  wish  to  have  it  understood  that  my  query 
involved  any  objection  to  the  draft  which  the  gentleman  from 
Bow  has  proposed.  The  only  object  of  my  rising  to  the 
question  was  to  enable  the  gentleman  from  Bow  to  state  to 
the  Convention  precisely  what  changes  he  proposed.  His 
explanation  has  been  quite  satisfactory  to  me  and  I  am  in 
favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  draft  as  presented. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — I  am  very  generally — and  per- 
haps I  am  wholly — in  favor  of  the  ideas  suggested  in  this 
proposed  amendment.  I  think  the  time  has  come  when  there 


74      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

should  be  no  reference  in  this  fundamental  document  of  our 
state  to  any  special  religious  society  or  religious  questions. 
In  that  regard  I  think  it  should  be  changed  and  shall  vote  for 
that. 

I  desire,  however,  to  retain  in  this  article  so  much  of  the 
language  and  the  spirit  of  our  fathers  as  may  be  retained  in 
order  to  bring  about  these  changes. 

For  one,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  better  to  have  this 
amendment  in  full  type  and  put  into  the  hands  of  every  mem- 
ber of  this  Convention  who  may  be  called  upon  to  pass  upon 
its  adoption,  and  so  I  am  in  favor  of  letting  this  matter  lie 
over  so  that  the  amendment  may  be  printed  and  we  may  have 
a  full  opportunity  of  comparing  the  changes  with  the  original 
article  before  voting  definitely  with  reference  to  any  change, 
and  I  move  that  we  pass  this  over  and  that  the  amendment 
be  printed. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Mr.  Chairman,  I  understand  that  the 
wish  of  the  gentleman  from  Lancaster  is  that  the  amend- 
ment be  printed  and  lie  on  the  table  for  further  consideration, 
and  that  we  proceed  with  the  reading  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  at 
this  time.  To  that  I  have  no  objection  whatever. 

(Motion  of  Mr.  Kent  is  carried.  Clerk  reads  articles  seven, 
eight,  nine,  ten  and  eleven.) 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — I  would  like  to  inquire  if 
in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  amendments  can  be  offered 
to  these  articles  as  they  are  read,  or,  should  the  amendments 
be  offered  in  the  Convention  and  then  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole? 

The  Chairman — The  chair  will  state  that  as  the  chair  un- 
derstands, this  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow  is 
committed  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  nothing  but 
that  should  be  considered  by  this  committee. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — Then  I  wish  to  give  notice 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  75 

that  I  have  an  amendment  that  I  desire  to  offer  to  article 
eleven. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — My  impression  is  that  the  amend- 
ment can  be  offered  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  I  think 
that  is  the  practice  in  bodies  where  Committees  of  the  "Whole 
are  more  in  vogue  than  in  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire. 
I  would  ask  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  how 
that  is. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  suppose  that  this  Convention 
may  do  as  it  likes.  I  supposed  that  this  Bill  of  Eights  was- 
being  read  in  order  that  amendments  might  be  offered. 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — If  amendments  can  be  offered 
in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  I  have  an  amendment  to- 
propose — that  the  word  "subject"  be  stricken  out  wherever 
it  occurs  in  the  Constitution,  and  the  word  "  citizen  "  be  sub- 
stituted in  place  thereof. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — Will  the  gentleman  accept  the 
suggestion  that  the  word  "  citizen  "  is  too  narrow?  It  would 
not  include  an  unnaturalized  foreigner  or  children.  I  would 
suggest  the  word  "inhabitant." 

The  Chairman — Upon  the  suggestions  made  by  the  differ- 
ent gentlemen  we  will  proceed,  if  there  is  no  objection,  to  re- 
ceive amendments. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth  offers  the  following  amend- 
ment to  article  eleven: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  of  this  state  be  amended 
by  adding  at  the  end  of  article  eleven  of  the  Bill  of  Rights 
the  following: 

"  But  no  person  shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible 
to  office  under  the  Constitution  of  this  state,  who  shall  not 
be  able  to  read  the  Constitution  in  the  English  language,  and 


76      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

write  his  name;  provided,  however,  that  this  provision  shall 
not  apply  to  any  person  prevented  by  a  physical  disability 
from  complying  with  its  requisitions,  nor  to  any  person  who 
now  has  the  right  to  vote,  nor  to  any  person  who  shall  be 
sixty  years  of  age  or  upwards  on  the  first  day  of  January, 
A.  D.  1904." 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — Mr.  President,  I  have  offered 
this  resolution  at  this  time  for  the  purpose  of  getting  it  before 
the  Convention,  but  I  am  not  aware  that  all  parties  interested 
therein  are  prepared  to  discuss  it  now.  I  believe  it  is  a 
matter  of  importance  to  us  all  that  this  amendment  should 
be  adopted.  It  will  be  seen  by  reading  the  resolution,  that 
it  does  not  affect  the  right  of  any  party  to  vote,  who  is  now  a 
voter;  but  it  is  for  the  purpose  of  preventing  men  who  are 
unable  to  read  or  write  from  voting  in  the  future,  provided 
they  are  not  of  the  age  of  sixty  years,  and  provided  further 
that  they  are  not  disabled  by  any  physical  disability  from 
complying  with  its  terms. 

I  would  move  for  the  purpose  of  allowing  the  Bill  of  Eights 
to  be  read  through,  that  this  amendment  lie  upon  the  table, 
and  be  printed,  and  be  taken  up  and  discussed  at  some  other 
meeting  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Streeter  of  Concord — I  rise  to  a  question  of  order.  I 
may  be  wrong,  but  I  think  there  must  be  some  misapprehen- 
sion about  the  parliamentary  situation.  I  believe  that  the 
records  will  show  that  the  only  question  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  was  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — The  motion  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  to  my  recollection  was  that  the 
Convention  resolve  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  on 
the  Bill  of  Eights,  part  first;  and  then  I  either  made  the  sug- 
gestion or  a  motion  that  the  Bill  of  Eights  be  read  section 
by  section  and  considered.  If  I  am  correct,  amendments 
would  be  in  order. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  77 

I  think  the  proper  motion  would  be  to  lay  this  amendment 
on  the  table  for  the  purpose  of  printing,  and  that  this  article 
be  passed  over  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Streeter  of  Concord — I  yield,  of  course,  to  the  very 
much  wider  experience  of  the  gentleman  with  reference  to 
the  rules  and  parliamentary  law,  but  I  do  not  quite  see  how 
under  any  logical  interpretation  of  those  rules  an  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  can  be  proposed  in  a  committee,  and  I 
should  expect,  in  order  to  get  our  records  right,  that  we 
should  have  to  have  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Somersworth  re-offered  in  the  Convention.  This 
is  a  committee  and  not  the  Constitutional  Convention.  I  do 
not  desire  to  discuss  it  because  I  care  about  it,  but  only  be- 
cause I  wish  to  keep  our  records  so  that  we  can  pursue  our 
course  in  a  logical  way. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Why  is  the  Bill  of  Eights  being 
read  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole? 

Mr.  Streeter  of  Concord — I  will  answer  that  I  did  not  un- 
derstand the  Bill  of  Eights  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — The  gentleman  from  Bow  of- 
fered his  amendment  and  it  was  suggested  that  the  Conven- 
tion resolve  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  the  Bill 
of  Eights  should  be  considered.  Now  if  there  is  any  purpose 
in  the  consideration  of  a  document  either  in  part  or  in  whole, 
it  is  that  it  may  be  amended,  and  it  facilitates  business  to 
have  this  done  in  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  inasmuch  as 
there  cannot  be  any  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

(The  motion  upon  which  the  house  resolved  itself  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole  was  read.) 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  would  suggest  that  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Somersworth,  as  well  as  the  motions 


78      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

previously  made  by  the  gentlemen  from  Bow  and  Stratham, 
that  the  amendments  proposed  be  laid  upon  the  table  to  be 
printed  and  that  the  section  be  passed  over  for  the  present. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — I  accept  the  suggestion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Concord  and  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester — I  would  like  to  inquire  where 
the  table  is  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  where  these  are 
to  lie.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  Convention  is  the  body  and 
the  table  is  the  place  where  the  Convention  refers  things  to 
that  it  desires  to  take  up  later,  but  when  we  come  into  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  I  am  not  aware  that  laying  matters 
upon  the  table  is  the  proper  mode  of  procedure.  The  mo- 
tion should  be,  as  I  think,  to  pass  and  print. 

The  Chairman — It  is  a  mere  question  of  words,  I  suppose. 

Mr.  Mies  of  Concord — I  should  like  to  return  to  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  this  committee  is  in  order  in  taking  up  amend- 
ments to  the  Constitution  proposed  here.  Is  it  proper  for 
new  business  before  the  Convention  to  be  introduced  in  one 
of  its  committees?  It  does  not  seem  to  me  it  is.  I  think  we 
are  confused  over  the  term  "amendments."  Amendments 
may  be  undoubtedly  made  in  the  committee  to  a  motion  or 
resolution  that  has  been  referred  to  it,  but  new  business  in 
the  form  of  amendments  to  the  Constitution  I  think  is  en- 
tirely out  of  place  in  being  introduced  before  the  committee. 
But  if  that  is  the  course  to  be  pursued  and  we  should  be 
barred  from  offering  amendments  to  articles  of  the  Bill  of 
Eights,  that  have  been  read  and  passed,  then  there  is  an 
amendment  that  I  desire  to  make  to  the  Bill  of  Eights.  I 
therefore  want  to  know  what  the  practice  will  be  with  refer- 
ence to  these  amendments;  whether  we  are  barred  from  offer- 
ing amendments  after  an  article  has  been  passed. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — In  reply  to  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  I  would  say  that  the  offering  of  an  amendment  to 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  79 

the  Bill  of  Eights,  which  is  the  subject  under  consideration, 
by  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  is  not 
new  business. 

Mr.  Chase  of  Bristol — It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  in  this 
situation;  that  these  votes  we  are  passing  in  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  are  matters  which  must  be  reported  by  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  to  the  Convention,  to  be  finally  act- 
ed upon  by  the  Convention  later.  It  does  not  seem  to  me 
that  it  is  anything  more  than  a  recommendation  which  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  decides  to  present  to  the  Convention 
at  some  time. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — The  gentleman  is  exactly  right. 
All  of  this  work  will  have  to  go  before  the  Convention  sit- 
ting as  a  Convention,  and  these  amendments  will  be  acted 
upon  there. 

The  Chairman — The  motion  is  to  lay  upon  the  table.  If 
there  is  no  table,  we  will  pass  that.  The  motion  will  then 
be,  that  the  amendments  proposed  be  printed  and  the  sec- 
tions to  which  there  are  amendments  be  passed  for  the  pres- 
ent. 

(Resolution  adopted.) 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — I  desire  to  make  another  sug- 
gestion with  reference  to  my  motion  to  strike  out  "  subject " 
and  insert  "  citizen."  I  made  the  motion  thinking  that  if  I 
did  not  make  it  at  the  time  it  would  be  too  late  to  make  it 
later.  Since  it  was  forwarded  to  the  desk  I  have  received  a 
suggestion  from  Judge  Aldrich  that  the  word  "citizen  "  ought 
to  be  "  inhabitant." 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — On  reflection,  I  should  prefer 
the  word  "  one." 

The  Chairman — The  gentleman  will  put  his  motion  in 
writing. 


80      JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — I  did  so  and  gave  it  to  a  page  to 
be  taken  to  the  desk. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — For  the  purpose  of  making  our 
records  so  they  will  be  correct,  I  move  that  we  return  to  ar- 
ticle five  of  the  Bill  of  Rights,  for  the  purpose  of  amendment. 

The  Chairman — If  there  is  no  objection  on  the  part  of  any 
member  of  the  committee,,  we  will  return  to  the  consideration 
of  article  five. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  think  that  I  have  been  somewhat 
instrumental  in  leading  this  committee  into  what  I  appre- 
hend to  be  really  an  error  of  practice. 

I  think  that  when  the  resolution  or  amendment,  which  I 
had  the  honor  to  offer,  was  passed  upon  I  should  have  made 
the  motion  that  the  committee  do  now  rise  and  report  to  the 
Convention,  and  then  in  the  Convention  I  should  have  made 
the  motion  that  my  resolution  lie  upon  the  table  and  be 
printed. 

I  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  unanimous  consent  that  the  action 
taken  may  be  considered  as  naught,  and  if  that  unanimous 
consent  is  given  I  will  make  the  other  motion. 

The  Chairman — Will  you  please  state  your  request  again? 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  ask  the  unanimous  consent  of  the 
committee  that  the  action  taken  by  the  committee  in  rela- 
tion to  the  resolution  which  I  had  the  honor  to  propose,  be 
null  and  void  or  be  reconsidered. 

The  Chairman — As  I  understand  the  motion  that  the  gen- 
tleman proposes,  it  is,  that  the  action  of  the  committee — 
which  was  that  his  amendment  to  article  six  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights  lie  upon  the  table  to  be  printed — be  reconsidered. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — Where  does  that  leave  us  as  to  all 
the  other  work  of  the  committee?  Does  the  gentleman  pro- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  81 

pose  to  strike  out  all  the  work  of  the  committee  from  tho 
time  his  resolution  was  acted  upon  to  the  present  time  ? 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — My  proposition  is  that  the  motion 
which  was  made  to  lay  my  amendment  upon  the  tahle  to  bo 
printed,  be  reconsidered.  Then  I  would  withdraw  my  mo- 
tion and  move  that  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  do  now  rise 
and  report.  I  presume  that  if  that  were  done  it  would  ren- 
der null  anything  that  has  been  done  since  then. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — I  do  not  know  what  situa- 
tion this  would  leave  my  amendment  in,  but  it  strikes  me  that 
the  proper  thing  to  have  done  would  be  to  consider  all  the 
amendments  before  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  then  to 
rise  and  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again  on  these 
different  amendments. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — The  trouble  is  that  the  resolutions  of 
the  gentleman  from  Somersworth,  Mr.  Edgerly,  and  of  the 
other  gentleman,  which  were  made  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  are  not  in  order  as  they  were  not  before  the  Conven- 
tion, as  I  understand  it.  , 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — That  was  a  doubt  that  I  had, 
and  I  would  not  have  offered  my  amendment  had  I  not  been 
in  doubt  as  to  whether  it  would  have  been  barred  by  not  pre- 
senting it  here;  whether  we  would  be  barred  from  going  into 
the  Convention  and  offering  a  resolution  upon  a  section, 
which  amendments  we  had  said  nothing  about  in  considering 
it  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  I  understand  it  to  be  in 
this  way:  that  when  the  Bill  of  Eights  was  submitted  to  this 
Convention  and  when  an  article  was  read  that  one  wished  to 
have  amended,  they  must  then  and  there  offer  amendment 
or  be  thereafter  debarred. 

Otherwise  I  would  not  have  offered  my  amendment.     If 

this  whole  action  of  the  committee  is  to  go  for  naught  from 

the  beginning  and  we  are  to  start  over  again  and  consider  an 

amendment  and  then  rise  and  report  progress  on  that  and 

6 


82      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

leave  opportunity  to  offer  other  amendment  hereafter,  I  am 
satisfied. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord— I  see  nothing  to  be  gained  from 
the  action  asked  to  be  taken  by  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow. 

Supposing  that  we  do  make  mistakes  and  supposing  that 
our  procedure  is  not  just  what  it  ought  to  be,  when  we  come 
into  the  Convention,  the  Convention  can  correct  anything  we 
do. 

The  Committee  of  the  Whole  is  not  a  usual  thing  in  the 
legislatures  of  New  Hampshire  and  it  is  natural  that  we  make 
some  errors  as  we  go  along,  but  as  I  have  already  said,  all  of 
those  errors  can  be  corrected  in  the  Convention  and  I  see  no 
reason  why  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow  should 
prevail. 

(Motion  put  and  rejected.) 

Mr.  Lord  of  Manchester — Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
as  one  of  the  members  of  the  Convention  I  am  not  familiar 
with  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  As  has  been  suggested, 
it  is  an  unusual  proceeding  here  in  New  Hampshire  to  sit  in 
a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  there  are  not  many  of  us  who 
seem  to  know  anything  at  all  about  it.  I  would  like  to  know 
what  we  are  doing. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  proper  place  for  the  Bill  of  Eights 
to  be  read  and  considered  would  be  in  the  Convention  and 
the  amendments  offered  there  and  then  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  where  they  can  be  discussed.  If  it  is  in 
order,  therefore,  I  make  the  motion  that  the  committee  do 
now  rise  and  report  no  progress  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again  at 
some  other  time. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  am  opposed  to  that.  I  am  op- 
posed to  taking  any  backward  steps.  This  is  a  Constitu- 
tional Convention  and  it  is  above  and  beyond  parliamentary 
rules.  When  it  has.  done  anything  fairly,  whether  it  is  in 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  or  as  a  Convention,  no  one  can 
question  it.  We  have  made  some  progress  and  no  one  has  a 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  83 

right  to  question  what  we  have  done.  It  offends  no  prin- 
ciple, it  offends  no  parliamentary  law,  except  those  that  the 
Convention  has  a  right  to  waive  for  the  time.  It  makes  no 
difference  whether  these  things  are  submitted  in  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  or  in  the  Convention.  It  is  simply  the 
question  of  considering  the  changes  the  people  should  make 
to  the  Constitution,  and  the  object,  as  I  understand  it,  in  go- 
ing into  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  reading  the  Bill  of 
Eights  is  to  receive  suggestions  and  consider  them.  If  we 
come  to  a  matter  that  we  can  dispose  of  here,  make  a  dis- 
position of  it,  and  no  one  can  question  it.  If  we  come  to 
a  matter  which  we  think  should  be  printed  and  considered 
further  or  reported  to  the  Convention,  we  can  do  that. 
There  is  no  occasion  to  talk  about  making  mistakes,  be- 
cause we  cannot  make  any  by  receiving  amendments  when- 
ever offered,  if  the  committee  chooses  to  receive  such 
amendments  and  consider  them.  And  that  I  think  is  so, 
whether  we  are  sitting  in  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  or  in 
Convention.  It  makes  no  difference,  and  I  am  opposed  to 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  that  we  rise 
and  report  no  progress.  I  think  we  had  better  go  a,long  as 
a  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  read  the  Bill  of  Eights  and 
receive  such  suggestions  as  we  can  dispose  of.  If  we  come  to 
something  that  cannot  be  disposed  of  here,  then  we  can  con- 
sider the  matter  of  rising  and  reporting. 

Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia — I  see  no  difficulty,  as  the  gentle- 
man from  Littleton  has  said,  in  the  parliamentary  situation. 
As  I  understand  the  situation,  the  Bill  of  Eights  is  under 
consideration  by  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  it  having  been 
referred  to  that  committee  by  the  Convention.  We  have  been 
sent  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  upon  the  line  which  the 
stenographer  has  read. 

Now,  my  understanding  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  is, 
that  unless  work  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  is  approved 
by  the  Convention,  nothing  has  been  done;  but  whatever  the 
committee  does,  which  is  approved  by  the  Convention,  is 
something  that  has  been  accomplished. 


84      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Under  those  circumstances  I  think  that  any  amendment 
that  any  delegate  desires  to  submit  can  be  submitted  here  and 
that  it  can  be  printed  and  discussed,  that  the  whole  Bill  of 
Rights  can  be  considered  under  these  rules,  and  then  we  can 
rise  and  report  progress  and  our  recommendations  to  the 
house. 

Mr.  Lord  of  Manchester — My  motion  was  made  simply  be- 
cause the  brightest  minds  in  this  Convention  did  not  seem  to- 
know  where  they  are  at.  'If  they  have  found  out  I  will  with- 
draw my  motion. 

(Motion  withdrawn.) 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — Before  this  discussion  the  gen- 
tleman from  Stratham,  Mr.  Wingate,  had  an  amendment 
which  he  desired  to  offer  to  article  five,  with  reference  to< 
which  the  gentleman  from  Littleton  offered  a  suggestion.  I 
made  a  motion,  which  I  understood  the  chair  allowed  by 
unanimous  consent,  that  we  should  return  to  article  five,  for 
the  purpose  of  amendment.  Is  that  amendment  pending 
now? 

The  Chairman — Article  five  is  before  the  committee  for 
amendment.  Is  there  any  amendment  to  be  offered? 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — I  made  the  motion  I  did,  sup- 
posing it  was  necessary  to  make  it  this  afternoon,  since  which 
time  the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  has  sug- 
gested an  alteration,  and  I  have  accepted  it  by  changing  the 
word  "  citizen  "  to  the  word  "  inhabitant "  or  "  one."  I  am 
certainly  very  anxious  to  have  the  word  "  subject "  taken  out 
of  our  Constitution.  When  the  Constitution  was  first  passed 
we  had  just  come  out  from  under  the  rule  of  George  the 
Third,  and  the  word  "  subject "  was  a  familiar  term  at  that 
time. 

In  the  office  which  I  have  held,  the  distinction  has  been 
made.  Americans  have  come  to  me  and  told  me  that  they 
were  Americans  and  then  it  was  not  necessary  for  me  to  in- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  85 

vestigate.  I  knew  that  they  were  citizens  of  the  United 
States,  but  if  they  came  to  me  and  said  that  they  were  Ameri- 
can subjects  I  always  had  occasion  to  inquire  where  they  did 
•come  from.  If  the  word  "  one  "  or  "  person/'  suggested  by 
the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  is  the  correct 
word  to  put  in  that  place,  I  accept  that  amendment  with 
pleasure. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  do  not  want  to  take  anything 
out  of  the  hands  of  the  gentleman  from  Stratham,  but  I 
think  it  would  be  better  to  have  the  section  read  as  follows: 
"  Every  individual  has  the  natural  and  unalienable  right  to 
worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience 
and  reason,  and  no  citizen  [or  person,  or  one]  shall  be  hurt," 
etc.  I  think  the  words  "  person  "  or  "  one  "  would  be  bet- 
ter in  that  connection  than  "citizen." 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — That  is  entirely  agreeable  to 
me. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — Then  I  think  it  better.be  dis- 
posed of  now  while  the  section  is  under  consideration. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter — Does  the  amendment  change  the 
sense  ?  I  don't  see  that  it  would  make  any  difference  whether 
the  word  "  subject "  is  used  in  that  connection  or  one  of  the 
others. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — The  objection  of  the  gentleman 
from  Stratham  is  largely  founded  on  taste  and  many  people 
hold  the  same  view.  No  American  is  a  subject.  They  are 
all  sovereigns  and  kings. 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — As  the  Romans  said, — if  I  pro- 
nounce my  Latin  right, — Gives  Romanus  sum. 

(The  following  resolution  introduced  by  Mr.  Wingate  of 
Stratham  is  passed.) 


86      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Resolved,  That  the  word  "  subject,"  in  line  three  of  article 
five  of  the  Bill  of  Eights,  be  stricken  out,  and  the  word  "  one  " 
be  inserted  in  place  thereof. 

Articles  twelve,  thirteen,  and  fourteen  read  by  the  clerk. 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — The  word  "  subject "  comes  in 
article  fourteenth  and  the  word  "  one,"  I  think,  would  not  be 
correct  in  that  place.  Some  other  word  ought  to  be  inserted. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — That  has  already  been  brought  to 
my  attention  by  a  gentleman  nearby,  and  it  will  take  perhaps 
a  little  time  to  adjust  it.  I  therefore  move,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  the  committee  do  now  rise  and  report  progress  and  ask 
leave  to  sit  again. 

(Motion  prevailed.) 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

On  rising  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  through  its  chair- 
man, Mr.  Cross  of  Manchester,  reported  to  the  Convention 
that  the- Committee  of  the  Whole  had  been  in  session  and  had 
instructed  him  to  report  that  some  considerable  work  had 
been  done  and  asked  leave  to  sit  again. 

No  objection  being  made,  such  leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  introduced  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  part  second,  article  nine  of  the  Constitution, 
be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "  eighteen  hundred," 
in  the  eighth  line  of  said  article  and  inserting  in  place  there- 
of the  words  "  twenty-six  hundred;"  and  by  striking  out  the 
words  "twelve  hundred,"  in  the  tenth  line  of  said  section, 
and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  words  "  two  thousand,"  so 
that  said  section,  as  amended,  shall  read: 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  3,  1902.  87 

ART.  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  this  state,  a 
representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  principles  of  equality,  and,  in  order  that  such  represen- 
tation may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every 
town,  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities 
having  six  hundred  inhabitants,  by  the  last  general  census  of 
the  state,  taken  by  authority  of  the  United  States  or  of  this 
state,  may  elect  one  representative;  if  twenty-six  hundred 
such  inhabitants  may  elect  two  representatives;  and  so  pro- 
ceeding in  that  proportion,  making  two  thousand  such  inhab- 
itants the  mean  increasing  number  for  any  additional  repre- 
sentative; provided,  that  no  town  shall  be  divided  or  the 
boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any  city  so  altered  as  to  increase 
the  number  of  representatives  to  which  such  town  or  city  may 
be  entitled  'by  the  next  preceding  census;  and  provided 
further,  that,  to  those  towns  and  cities  which  since  the  last 
census  have  been  divided  or  had  their  boundaries  or  ward 
lines  changed,  the  general  court  in  session  next  before  these 
amendments  shall  take  effect  shall  equitably  apportion  repre- 
sentation in  such  manner  that  the  number  shall  not  be  great- 
er than  it  would  have  been  had  no  such  division  or  alteration 
been  made. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  laid 
upon  the  table  to  be  printed,  and  to  be  considered  with  the 
other  resolutions  on  the  same  subject  as  a  part  of  the  special 
order  at  the  forenoon  session  of  Thursday,  December  4. 

The  Special  Committee,  to  whom  was  referred  the  petition 
of  Felix  G.  Harbour  and  others,  representing  that  the  peti- 
tioners were  entitled,  and  that  Herman  Greager,  Joseph  G. 
Plante,  Joseph  Richer,  and  Eugene  Quirin  were  not  legally 
entitled  to  seats  in  this  Convention,  reported  the  said  peti- 
tion with  the  following  recommendation: 

That  the  petitioners  have  leave  to  withdraw,  and  that  said 
Herman  Greager,  Joseph  G.  Plante,  Joseph  Richer,  and  Eu- 
gene Quirin  be  declared  duly  qualified  members  of  this  Con- 


88      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

vention,  legally  elected  as  delegates  from  the  ninth  ward  in 
the  city  of  Manchester,  and  be  seated  accordingly. 

The  facts  of  the  case  are  undisputed,  and  the  petitioners 
admit  that  said  Greager,  Plante,  Richer,  and  Quirin  were 
legally  elected  as  delegates  to  this  Convention,  unless  their 
election  is  invalidated  by  the  fact  that  the  certificate  of  nom- 
ination of  said  Greager,  Plante,  Richer,  and  Quirin,  as  nomi- 
nees of  a  caucus  of  a  political  party,  was  filed  with  the  secre- 
tary of  state  one  hour  and  fifteen  minutes  after  the  expiration 
of  the  time  limited  by  statute  for  the  filing  of  such  certifi- 
cates of  nomination. 

The  nomination  was  regular,  and  the  omission  to  file  the 
certificate  seasonably  was  the  result  of  accident  or  of  neglect 
on  the  part  of  some  person  other  than  the  nominees.  By  di- 
rection of  the  ballot  law  commissioners,  the  secretary  of  state 
placed  the  names  of  the  nominees  on  the  official  ballots,  and 
no  other  ballots  were  provided  or  used  at  the  election  in  s-iid 
ward. 

The  petitioners  received  some  votes  at  said  election;  and 
if  the  votes  cast  for  said  Greager,  Plante,  Richer,  and  Quirin 
be  rejected  and  those  cast  for  petitioners  be  counted,  the  peti- 
tioners would  be  entitled  to  seats  in  this  Convention. 

Your  committee  are  of  the  opinion  that  the  law  limiting 
the  term  within  which  certificates  of  nomination  shall  be 
filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  is  directory,  and  the  secretary 
of  state  was  acting  properly  under  the  law  in  placing  on  the 
official  ballot  the  names  of  the  acting  members,  that  they  were 
legally  voted  for  and  elected,  and  are  entitled  to  their  seats 
in  this  Convention. 

ARTHUR  0.  FULLER, 

For  the  Committee. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster,  the  report  of  the 
committee  was  accepted,  the  recommendations  adopted,  and 
the  persons  therein  named  were  declared  duly  elected  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention. 

The  committee  to  whom  was  committed  the  matter  of  in- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  89 

•specting  the  ballots  cast  for  Philip  Riley  and  Nelson  \V. 
Paige  as  contesting  candidates,  in  ward  ten  of  the  city  of 
Manchester,  for  the  position  of  delegate  to  this  Convention 
from  said  ward,  reported  that  they  had  attended  to  their 
•duties  and  respectfully  reported  as  follows: 

The  number  of  ballots  cast  for  said  candidates  was  seven 
hundred  and  fourteen  (714). 

Of  which  number 

Philip  Eiley  had  three  hundred  and  fifty-six  (356), 

And  Nelson  "W.  Paige  had  three  hundred  and  fifty-eight 
(358). 

EDWARD  B.  PARKER, 
Chairman  of  Committee. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Harvey  of  Manchester,  the  report  was 
accepted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sanborn  of  Wakefield,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902. 
The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 
Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  Mr.  Reed  of  Concord. 

The  reading  of  the  journal  having  been  commenced,  on 
motion  of  Mr  .Chase  of  Bristol,  the  rules  were  so  far  sus- 
pended that  the  further  reading  of  the  journal  was  dispensed 
with. 

Mr.  Little  of  Manchester  announced  that  Chaplain  Burton 
"W.  Lockhart  would  be  unable  to  perform  his  duties  during 
the  present  week,  and  on  motion  of  Mr.  Briggs  of  Manches- 
ter, the  President  was  authorized  to  supply  the  vacancy  for 
the  remainder  of  the  week. 


90      JOUENAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  President  announced  the  following  standing  commit- 
tees: 

BILL  OF  RIGHTS  AND  EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton. 
Mr.  Briggs  of  Manchester. 
Mr.  Drew  of  Lancaster. 
Mr.  Bales  of  Wilton. 
Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter. 
Mr.  Chase  of  Kingston. 
Mr.  Meader  of  Eochester. 
Mr.  Busiel  of  Laconia. 
Mr.  Eogers  of  Tilton. 
Mr.  Clow  of  Wolfeborough. 
Mr.  Kimball  of  Concord. 
Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin. 
Mr.  Buxton  of  Boscawen. 
Mr.  "Woodbury  of  Bedford. 
Mr.  Madden  of  Keene. 
Mr.  Stone  of  Troy. 
Mr.  Colby  of  Claremont. 
Mr.  Bradley  of  Newport. 
Mr.  Morris  of  Lisbon. 
Mr.  Evans  of  Gorham. 

LEGISLATIVE  DEPARTMENT, 

Mr.  Cross  of  Manchester. 
Mr.  Sanborn  of  Wakefield. 
Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. 
Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord. 
Mr.  Howard  of  Portsmouth. 
Mr.  Healey  of  Raymond. 
Mr.  Cochran  of  Rochester. 
Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia. 
Mr.  Coldbath  of  Barnstead. 
Mr.  Truesdell  of  Pembroke. 
Mr.  Hadley  of  Temple. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  91 

Mr.  Peavey  of  Greenfield. 

Mr.  Quirin  (Joseph)  of  Manchester. 

Mr.  Eugg  of  Sullivan. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Acworth. 

Mr.  Eichardson  of  Canaan. 

Mr.  Woodbury  of  Woodstock. 

Mr.  Parker  of  Franconia. 

Mr.  Philbrook  of  Shelburne. 

Mr.  LaPlante  of  Berlin. 

JUDICIAL    DEPARTMENT. 

Mr.  Blodgett  of  Franklin. 
Mr.  Walker  of  Concord. 
Mr.  Parker  of  Nashua. 
Mr.  Adams  of  Portsmouth. 
Mr.  Follansby  of  Exeter. 
Mr.  Gunnison  of  Eochester. 
Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton. 
Mr.  Thompson  of  Laconia. 
Mr.  Coleman  of  Brookfield. 
Mr.  Dudley  of  Concord. 
Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua. 
Mr.  Smith  of  Hillsborough. 
Mr.  Little  of  Manchester. 
Mr.  Annett  of  Jaffrey. 
Mr.  Taft  of  Keene. 
Mr.  Barton  of  Newport. 
Mr.  Way  of  Claremont. 
Mr.  Westgate  of  Haverhill. 
Mr.  Colby  of  Hanover. 
Mr.  Daley  of  Berlin. 

ON  FUTURE  MODE  OF  AMENDING  THE  CONSTITUTION  AND 
OTHER  PROPOSED  AMENDMENTS. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter. 
Mr.  Tennev  of  Claremont. 


92      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Botch  of  Milford. 
Mr.  Norris  of  Portsmouth. 
Mr.  Moulton  of  Dover. 
Mr.  Lewis  of  Laconia. 
Mr.  Smith  of  New  Hampton. 
Mr.  Bideout  of  Bartlett. 
Mr.  Baker  of  Bow. 
Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin. 
Mr.  Howe  of  Concord. 
Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester. 
Mr.  Hunt  of  Manchester. 
Mr.  Spaulding  of  Walpole. 
Mr.  Pierce  of  Winchester. 
Mr.  Greene  of  Littleton. 
Mr.  Pike  of  Haverhill. 
Mr.  Bussell  of  Plymouth. 
Mr.  Wight  of  Berlin. 
Mr.  Paine  of  Berlin. 

ON  TIME  AND  MODE  OF  SUBMITTING  TO  THE  PEOPLE  THE 
AMENDMENTS  AGREED  TO  BY  THE  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord. 
Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester. 
Mr.  Shute  of  Wentworth. 
Mr.  Wetherell  of  Exeter. 
Mr.  Sanders  of  Derry. 
Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth. 
Mr.  Nute  of  Dover. 
Mr.  Cogswell  of  Gilmanton. 
Mr.  Dearborn  of  Eaton. 
Mr.  Mies  of  Concord. 
Mr.  Hollis  of  Concord. 
Mr.   Chase  of  Bristol.  - 
Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua. 
Mr.  Holman  of  Hillsborough. 
Mr.  Woodward  of  Keene. 
Mr.  Newell  of  Keene. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  9& 

Mr.  Kichards  of  Newport. 
Mr.  Bartlett  of  Sunapee. 
Mr.  Dole  of  Lebanon. 
Mr.  Johnson  of  Colebrook. 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner  offered  the  following  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Constitution: 

Resolved,  That  the  word  "  male  "  be  stricken  from  article 
twenty-seven,,  part  second  of  the  Constitution. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  or- 
dered printed  and  laid  upon  the  table  until  the  article  to 
which  the  proposed  amendment  related  was  reached  by  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord  submitted  the  following  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Constitution: 

That  article  six  of  the  Bill  of  Eights  be  amended  as  follows: 

Strike  out  the  word  "  evangelical "  and  insert  in  place 
thereof  the  word  "  Christian." 

Strike  out  the  word  "  towns  "  wherever  it  appears  in  said 
article. 

Strike  out  the  word  "  Protestant." 

Strike  out  the  words  "  every  denomination  of  Christians,"" 
and  insert  in  place  thereof  the  words  "  all  persons." 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  laid 
upon  the  table  to  be  printed,  and  the  same  was  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Eights  and  Executive  Department. 

The  following  resolution  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Fuller  of 
Exeter: 

Resolved,  That  article  seventy  of  part  second  of  the  Consti- 
tution be  amended  by  striking  out  the  word  "  solicitors,"  and 
that  the  following  article  be  added  to  the  Constitution: 

The  county  solicitors  shall  be  appointed  by  the  judges  of 


94      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  superior  court,  and  shall  hold  office  for  a  term  of  five 
years.  They  shall  be  subject  to  removal  at  any  time  by  the 
judges  of  the  superior  court  on  the  ground  of  physical  or 
mental  disability,  or  for  cause  shown,  after  due  notice  and 
hearing.  Vacancies  occurring  by  reason  of  the  removal, 
death,  resignation,  or  expiration  of  the  term  of  office  of  any 
solicitor  shall  be  filled  in  like  manner,  the  persons  so  ap- 
pointed to  hold  office  for  a  term  of  five  years  from  the  date 
of  their  appointment.  The  judges  of  the  superior  court  shall 
have  power  to  make  all  necessary  rules  for  carrying  into  effect 
the  provisions  of  this  article.  The  first  appointments  under 
this  article  shall  be  made  to  take  effect  on  the  first  day  of 
January  following  its  adoption. 

It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  provide  for  the 
county  solicitors  such  reasonable  salaries  as  shall  suffice  to 
secure  the  services  of  men  qualified  to  perform  the  duties 
of  the  office. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department  and 
ordered  printed. 

The  following  resolution  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Aldrich 
of  Littleton: 

Resolved,  That  article  twenty-five,  part  two  of  the  Consti- 
tution be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "  twenty-four  " 
and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  word  "  forty,"  so  that  the 
same  shall  read: 

The  senate  shall  consist  of  forty  members,  who  shall  hold 
their  office  for  two  years,  from  the  first  Wednesday  of  Jan- 
uary next  ensuing  their  election. 

And  article  twenty-six,  part  two,  be  amended  by  striking 
from  the  third  line  the  words  "  twenty-f our,"  and  inserting 
the  word  "  forty." 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  proposed  amend- 
ment was  laid  upon  the  table,  to  be  included  in  the  special 
order  for  11  o'clock  in  the  forenoon. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  95 

The  following  resolution  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Morris  of 
Lisbon: 

Resolved,  That  article  seventy-seven,  part  two  of  the  Consti- 
tution be  amended  by  the  addition  of  the  following  words: 

"  And  the  general  court  are  further  empowered  to  give  to 
police  courts  original  jurisdiction  to  try  and  determine,  sub- 
ject to  right  of  appeal  and  trial  by  jury,  all  criminal  causes 
wherein  the  punishment  is  less  than  imprisonment  in  the 
state  prison."  So  that  when  amended  said  section  shall  read: 

The  general  court  are  empowered  to  give  to  justices  of  the 
peace  jurisdiction  in  civil  causes,  when  the  damages  demanded 
shall  not  exceed  one  hundred  dollars,  and  title  of  real  estate 
is  not  concerned,  but  with  right  of  appeal  to  either  party  to 
some  other  court.  And  the  general  court  are  further  empow- 
ered to  give  to  police  courts  original  jurisdiction  to  try  and 
determine,  subject  to  right  of  appeal  and  trial  by  jury,  all 
criminal  causes  wherein  the  punishment  is  less  than  imprison- 
ment in  the  state  prison. 

The  same  gentleman  moved  that  the  resolution  be  printed 
and  referred  to  the  appropriate  committee.  The  motion 
prevailed  and  the  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  the  Legislative  Department. 

The  following  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
was  introduced  by  Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner: 

Resolved,  That  the  following  words  be  stricken  from  article 
nine,  part  second,  viz.:  "if  eighteen  hundred  such  inhabi- 
tants may  elect  two  representatives,  and  so  proceeding  in  that 
proportion,  making  twelve  hundred  such  inhabitants  the  mean 
increasing  number  for  any  additional  representative."  And 
that  in  place  of  the  words  stricken  out,  the  following  words 
be  substituted,  viz.:  if  thirty-six  hundred  such  inhabitants 
may  elect  two  representatives,  and  so  proceeding  in  that  pro- 
portion, making  three  thousand  such  inhabitants  the  mean 
increasing  number  for  any  additional  representative. 


96      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  it  was  ordered  that  the 
resolution  lie  upon  the  table,  to  be  taken  up  and  considered 
under  the  special  order  for  11  o'clock  in  the  forenoon. 

The  following  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
was  offered  by  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow: 

Amend  article  two,  part  second  of  the  Constitution,  under 
title  of  The  General  Court,  so  it  shall  read  as  follows : 

ART.  2.  The  supreme  legislative  power  within  this  state 
shall  be  vested  in  a  senate,  which  shall  not  exceed  fifty,  and 
a  house  of  representatives,  which  shall  not  exceed  one  hun- 
dred and  fifty  members,  and  the  senate  and  house  shall  have 
a  negative  on  each  other. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  laid 
upon  the  table  to  be  printed,  and  to  remain  subject  to  the 
general  order. 

The  following  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
was  offered  by  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow: 

Amend  part  second  of  the  Constitution,  title  Senate,  by 
striking  out  all  of  articles  twenty-four  and  twenty-five  and 
inserting  as  follows: 

ART.  24.  The  number  of  members  who  compose  the  sen- 
ate shall  be  prescribed  by  law,  but  shall  never  exceed  one 
member  for  every  ten  thousand,  nor  be  less  than  one  member 
for  every  twenty  thousand  inhabitants,  and  shall  be  appor- 
tioned equally  throughout  the  different  sections  of  the  state 
in  proportion  to  the  population  thereof. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  or- 
dered printed  and  laid  on  the  table  subject  to  the  general 
order. 

The  following  resolution  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Sloane  of 
Haverhill :  ' 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  97 

Resolved,  That  article  seventy  of  part  second  of  the  Consti- 
tution be  amended  by  striking  out  the  word  "  sheriffs/'  and 
that  the  following  article  be  added  to  the  Constitution: 

The  sheriffs  shall  be  appointed  by  the  judges  of  the  superior 
court,  and  shall  hold  office  for  a  term  of  five  years.  They 
shall  be  subject  to  removal  at  any  time  by  the  judges  of  the 
superior  court  on  the  ground  of  physical  or  mental  disability, 
or  for  cause  shown,  after  due  notice  and  hearing.  Yacancies 
occurring  by  reason  of  the  removal,  death,  resignation  or 
expiration  of  the  term  of  office  of  any  solicitor  shall  be  filled 
in  like  manner,  the  persons  so  appointed  to  hold  office  for  a 
term  of  five  years  from  the  date  of  their  appointment. 

No  deputy  sheriffs  shall  be  appointed  until  their  names 
have  been  submitted  to  and  approved  by  the  judges  of  the 
superior  court. 

The  judges  of  the  superior  court  shall  have  power  to  make 
all  necessary  rules  for  carrying  into  effect  the  provisions  of 
this  article. 

The  first  appointments  under  this  article  shall  be  made  to 
take  effect  on  the  first  day  of  January  following  its  adoption. 

The  same  gentleman  moved  that  the  foregoing  resolution 
be  ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  appropriate  committee. 
Declared  lost  on  a  viva  voce  vote.  Mr.  Collins  of  Portsmouth 
moved  to  lay  the  resolution  upon  the  table.  Upon  the  former 
question,  Mr.  Sloane  of  Haverhill  called  for  a  division.  This 
motion  was  ruled  out  of  order. 

By  request  the  resolution  was  given  a  second  reading. 
Question,  upon  the  motion  to  lay  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  Sloane  moved  to  amend  the  motion,  but  was  declared 
out  of  order. 

Mr.  Collins  of  Portsmouth  withdrew  his  motion  to  lay  upon 
the  table,  and  the  motion  to  print  and  refer  to  the  proper 
committee  being  renewed,  the  affirmative  prevailed  and  the 

7 


98       JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial 
Department. 

The  following  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
was  offered  by  Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham: 

Amend  article  thirty-two,  in  the  second  part  of  the  Consti- 
tution, by  striking  out  the  last  clause  thereof,  beginning 
with  the  words  "  provided,  nevertheless." 

The  same  gentleman  moved  that  the  resolution  be  referred 
to  the  proper  committee  and  printed.  The  motion  prevailed, 
and  the  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department. 

The  following  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
was  offered  by  Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord: 

Amend  by  striking  out  all  of  articles  nine  and  ten  of  part 
second  of  the  Constitution,  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  fol- 
lowing, viz.: 

ART.  9.  There  shall  be  in  the  legislature  of  this  state  a 
representation  of  the  people  biennially  elected.  The  num- 
ber of  members  who  compose  the  house  of  representatives 
shall  be  prescribed  by  law,  but  shall  never  exceed  one  mem- 
ber for  every  two  thousand  five  hundred  inhabitants.  The 
representation  shall  be  equally  apportioned  throughout  the 
state  in  proportion  to  the  population  thereof. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  laid  upon  the  table  subject  to  the 
general  order. 

The  following  resolution  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Scott  of 
Peterborough: 

Resolved,  That  article  nine  of  the  Constitution  of  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire  be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words 
"eighteen  hundred,"  in  the  eighth  line  of  said  article,  and 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  99 

inserting  in  place  thereof  the  words  "thirty-six  hundred," 
and  by  striking  out  the  words  "  twelve  hundred,"  in  the  tenth 
line,  and  inserting  the  words  "  three  thousand,"  so  that  said 
article,  when  amended,  shall  read: 

ART.  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  this  state,  a 
representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  principles  of  equality,  and,  in  order  that  such  represen- 
tation may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every 
town,  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities 
having  six  hundred  inhabitants  by  the  last  general  census  of 
the  state,  taken  by  authority  of  the  United  States  or  of  this 
state,  may  elect  one  representative;  if  thirty-six  hundred  such 
inhabitants,  may  elect  two  representatives;  and  so  proceeding 
in  that  proportion,  making  three  thousand  such  inhabitants 
the  mean  increasing  number  for  any  additional  represen- 
tative; provided,  that  no  town  shall  be  divided  or  the  bound- 
aries of  the  wards  of  any  city  so  altered  as  to  increase  the 
number  of  representatives  to  which  such  town  or  city  may  be 
entitled  by  the  next  preceding  census;  and  provided  further, 
that,  to  those  towns  and  cities  which  since  the  last  census 
have  been  divided  or  had  th<;ir  boundaries  or  ward  lines 
changed,  the  general  court  in  session  next  before  these 
amendments  shall  take  effect  shall  equitably  apportion  repre- 
sentation in  such  manner  that  the  number  shall  not  be 
greater  than  it  would  have  been  had  no  such  division  or  alter- 
ation been  made. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  laid 
upon  the  table,  to  be  taken  up  as  part  of  the  special  order 
for  11  o'clock  in  the  forenoon. 

The  following  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
was  offered  by  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow: 

Amend  articles  nine  and  ten  of  part  second  of  the  Consti- 
tution, under  title  of  House  of  Eepresentatives,  by  striking 
out  the  words  "  six  hundred  "  wherever  they  occur,  and  in- 


100     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

serting  the  words  "  twelve  hundred ;"  the  words  "  eighteen 
hundred,"  wherever  they  occur,  and  inserting  the  words 
"  thirty-six  hundred,"  and  the  words  "  twelve  hundred," 
wherever  they  occur,  and  inserting  the  words  "  twenty-four 
hundred,"  so  that  they  shall  read  as  follows: 

ART.  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  this  state,  a 
representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  principles  of  equality,  and,  in  order  that  such  repre- 
sentation may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every 
town,  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities 
having  twelve  hundred  inhabitants  by  the  last  general  census 
of  the  state,  taken  by  authority  of  the  United  States,  or  of 
this  state,  may  elect  one  representative;  if  thirty-six  hundred 
such  inhabitants,  may  elect  two  representatives;  and  so  pro- 
ceeding in  that  proportion,  making  twenty-four  hundred  such 
inhabitants  the  mean  increasing  number  for  any  additional 
representative;  provided,  that  no  town  shall  be  divided,  or  the 
boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any  city  so  altered  as  to  increase 
the  number  of  representatives  to  which  such  town  or  city 
may  be  entitled  by  the  next  preceding  census;  and  provided, 
further,  that,  to  those  towns  and  cities  which  since  the  last 
census  have  been  divided,  or  had  their  boundaries  or  ward 
lines  changed,  the  general  court,  in  session  next  before  these 
amendments  shall  take  effect,  shall  equitably  apportion  repre- 
sentation in  such  manner  that  the  number  shall  not  be 
greater  than  it  would  have  been  had  no  such  division  or  alter- 
ation been  made. 

ART.  10.  Whenever  any  town,  place,  or  city  ward  shall 
have  less  than  twelve  hundred  such  inhabitants,  the  general 
court  shall  authorize  such  town,  place,  or  ward  to  elect  and 
send  to  the  general  court  a  representative  such  proportionate 
part  of  the  time  as  the  number  of  its  inhabitants  shall  bear 
to  twelve  hundred;  but  the  general  court  shall  not  authorize 
any  such  town,  place,  or  ward  to  elect  and  send  such  repre- 
sentative, except  as  herein  provided. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  laid 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  101 

upon  the  table  to  be  printed,  and  to  be  taken  up  with  the 
special  order  for  11  o'clock  in  the  forenoon. 

The  following  resolution  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Mies  of 
Concord: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  amended  by  the  addition 
of  the  following  article: 

The  supreme  and  superior  courts,  as  now  established  by 
law,  are  hereby  made  permanent.  The  duties  and  powers  of 
the  courts  may,  from  time  to  time,  be  varied  in  a  manner  not 
inconsistent  with  any  other  part  of  the  Constitution;  provided, 
that  the  supreme  court  shall  continue  to  exercise  the  func- 
tions of  a  court  of  appeals  on  questions  of  law,  and  shall  never 
act  as  a  trial  court,  and  that  the  superior  court  shall  continue 
to  be  a  trial  court,  exercising  like  functions  to  those  with 
which  it  is  now  charged  by  law. 

The  legislature  may,  from  time  to  time,  increase  the  mem- 
bership of  either  court,  and  may  change  the  salaries  and 
emoluments  of  the  judges;  but  no  act  of  the  legislature 
shall  have  the  effect,  directly  or  indirectly,  of  decreasing  the 
salary  or  emoluments  of  any  judge,  during  the  term  of  office 
for  which  he  has  been  appointed,  or  to  shorten  his  term  of 
office,  except  as  hereinafter  provided. 

The  judges  of  the  supreme  and  superior  courts  shall  be 
subject  to  removal  from  office  only  by  impeachment  for 
bribery,  corruption,  malpractice,  or  maladministration  in 
office,  or  by  address  on  the  ground  of  physical  or  mental  dis- 
ability to  perform  the  duties  of  their  office. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  or- 
dered printed  and  referred  to  appropriate  committee.  Re- 
ferred to  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department. 

The  following  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
was  introduced  by  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord: 

Add,  at  the  end  of  article  eighty- two,  the  following: 


102     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  railroad  companies,  both  steam  and  electric,  are  public 
corporations,  in  aid  of  which  the  state  has  exercised  its  right 
of  eminent  domain,  by  authorizing  the  taking  of  private  lands 
for  the  public  use,  compensation  being  made  therefor. 

All  railroads  are  therefore  public  highways,  upon  which  all 
citizens  are  entitled  to  equality  of  right  and  privilege.  It 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  pass  laws  to  enforce 
such  equality,  and,  especially,  to  prohibit  free  transportation 
for  public  officers,  or  for  any  other  persons,  except  those 
directly  employed  in  the  operation  of  railroads. 

The  legislature  shall  also  promote  the  extension  of  the  rail- 
road system  of  the  state,  by  granting  charters  for  additional 
roads,  upon  just  conditions,  and  without  unreasonable  re- 
strictions. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  laid 
upon  the  table  to  be  printed. 

The  following  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution 
was  introduced  by  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord: 

No  person,  association,  co-partnership,  or  corporation,  shall 
promise,  offer,  or  give,  for  any  purpose,  to  any  political  com- 
mittee, or  any  member  or  employee  thereof,  to  any  candidate 
for,  or  incumbent  of,  any  office  or  position  under  the  Consti- 
tution or  laws,  or  under  any  ordinance  of  any  town  or  munici- 
pality of  this  state,  or  to  any  person  at  the  request  or  for  the 
advantage  of  all,  or  any  of  them,  any  free  pass  or  frank,  or 
any  privilege  withheld  from  any  person,  for  the  traveling 
accommodation  or  transportation  of  any  person  or  property, 
or  the  transmission  of  any  message  or  communication.  No 
political  committee,  and  no  member  or  employee  thereof,  no 
candidate  for,  and  no  incumbent  of  any  office  or  position  un- 
der the  Constitution  or  laws,  or  under  any  ordinance  of  any 
town  or  municipality  of  this  state,  shall  ask  for,  or  accept, 
from  any  person,  association,  co-partnership,  or  corporation, 
or  use,  in  any  manner,  or  for  any  purpose,  any  free  pass  or 
frank,  or  any  privilege  withheld  from  any  person,  for  the 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  103 

traveling  accommodation  or  transportation  of  any  person  or 
property,  or  the  transmission  of  any  message  or  communi- 
cation. Any  violation  of  any  of  the  above  provisions  shall 
be  bribery  and  be  punished  as  provided  by  law,  and  if  any 
officer  or  any  member  of  the  legislature  be  guilty  thereof,  his 
office  shall  become  vacant.  No  person  within  the  purview 
of  this  act  shall  be  privileged  from  testifying  in  relation  to 
anything  therein  prohibited;  and  no  person  having  so  testi- 
fied shall  be  liable  to  any  prosecution  or  punishment  for  any 
offense  concerning  which  he  was  required  to  give  his  testi- 
mony or  produce  any  documentary  evidence.  The  railroad 
commissioners,  in  the  discharge  of  duty,  are  excepted  from 
the  provisions  of  this  clause. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  laid 
on  the  table  to  be  printed. 

The  time  having  arrived  for  the  consideration  of  the  special 
order  of  the  day,  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  moved  that  the  Conven- 
tion resolve  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  that  the 
several  proposed  amendments  to  the  Constitution  included  in 
the  special  order  for  11  o'clock  in  the  forenoon  be  taken 
from  the  table  and  referred  to  the  committee.  The  motion 
prevailed,  and  the  Convention  resolved  itself  into  Committee 
of  the  Whole. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton  in  the  chair.) 

The  Chairman — Gentlemen,  you  are  in  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  and  the  Chair  awaits  the  pleasure  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Woodbury  of  Woodstock — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentle- 
men of  the  committee,  it  is  not  my  purpose,  nor,  perhaps,  my 
place,  to  discuss  at  this  time  the  proposition  which  I  intro- 
duced here  yesterday.  I  am  well  aware  that  there  are  others 
here  better  able  to  discuss  this  question,  and  for  that  reason 
the  discussion  will  be  left  to  men  of  legislative  experience. 


104    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

I  am  simply  going  to  present  to  you,  gentlemen  of  the  com- 
mittee, my  views  in  regard  to  the  matter.  I  am  not  going 
to  present  them,  thinking  or  believing  that  they  are  the  only 
good  ones  that  can  be  offered.  There  have  been  several 
propositions  made  in  regard  to  amending  the  Constitution 
which  look  to  a  reduction  of  the  house  of  representatives,  and, 
of  course,  this  Convention  is  called  for  the  purpose  of  bring- 
ing out  the  different  ideas  of  the  people. 

It  is  a  foregone  conclusion  that  the  legislature  of  the  slate 
of  New  Hampshire  is  too  large  by  a  good  many,  and  I  have 
prepared,  at  the  request  of  my  constituency, .  a  resolution 
which  was  read  yesterday  in  the  Convention  and  referred  to 
this  Committee  of  the  Whole.  I  have  gone  over  the  matter 
in  regard  to  the  number  of  representatives  that  this  resolu- 
tion would  authorize  elected,  provided  it  was  adopted  by  the 
Convention  and  ratified  by  the  vote  of  the  people. 

I  am  in  favor,  as  far  as  it  is  possible,  of  retaining  the  town 
representation,  and  I  think  the  better  way  to  do  that  is  upon 
a  basis  of  the  voters  rather  than  inhabitants.  Perhaps  some 
of  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee  may  think  that  the  town 
I  come  from  has  165  voters,  but  that  is  not  a  fact,  as  you 
will  readily  see  by  looking  up  the  gubernatorial  vote  which 
was  cast  at  the  last  election.  We  cast  136  votes  at  that  time. 

I  do  not  believe,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that  the 
rural  towns  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  want  to  be 
bunched  together  into  different  districts.  I  believe  that  a 
large  per  cent,  of  the  rural  towns  want  to  send  one  of  their 
own  men  as  representatives,  if  it  is  not  more  than  once  in 
two  or  three  sessions;  they  prefer  to  do  that  rather  than  to 
be  bunched  together  in  a  district.  For  this  reason  I  have 
proposed  this  resolution,  which  bases  the  representation  upon 
the  legal  voters  of  the  state,  and  not  upon  the  population,  as 
is  done  now.  This  is  a  fair  proposition  for  the  town  and  also 
a  fair  proposition  for  the  city.  The  city  will  get  its  share  of 
representation  and  be  on  an  equal  footing  with  the  town. 

I  am  not  going  to  detain  you  on  this  part  except  to  read 
to  you  some  figures  I  have  made.  I  do  not  claim  they  are 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  105 

strictly  correct,  but  they  are  somewhere  near  what  would 
be  the  result  if  this  resolution  was  adopted  by  the  Convention 
and  ratified. 

Eockingham  county  would  have  34  representatives;  Strat- 
ford, 23;  Belknap,  14;  Carroll,  17;  Merrimack,  39;  Hills- 
borough,  52;  Cheshire,  18;  Sullivan,  13;  Grafton,  30;  Coos, 
22;  making  in  all  262,  based  upon  the  vote  of  the  state  at  the 
last  election;  providing,  however,  that  the  legislature  pro- 
rates the  towns  equally;  or,  in  other  words,  pro-rates  one  half 
of  the  towns  for  one  session  and  the  other  one  half  for  the 
next  session  of  the  legislature.  And,  of  course,  the  legis- 
lature of  the  state  would  pro-rate,  having  in  view  the  justice 
of  the  case,  and  would  naturally  pro-rate  half  of  the  towns 
each  year  and  would  regulate  its  membership  according  to  the 
towns  that  would  have  to  be  pro-rated. 

The  cities  would  have  a  representation  as  follows:  These 
figures,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  may  not  be  exactly  cor- 
rect, but  they  are  somewhere  near.  Perhaps  some  cities 
might  have  one  or  two  more  representatives  than  I  have 
figured  out.  Portsmouth  would  have  6;  Dover,  5;  Eochester, 
6;  Somersworth,  5;  Laconia,  4;  Concord,  10;  Franklin,  3; 
Manchester,  17;  Nashua,  10;  Keene,  5;  Berlin,  3;  making  74 
representatives  from  our  cities.  The  large  towns  like  Exeter, 
Claremont,  Lebanon,  Littleton,  and  Lancaster,  would  have 
two  representatives  each. 

I  think,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that  I  have  made  my 
position  plain  and  I  trust  now  you  may  have  some  grounds 
on  which  to  discuss  my  proposition,  either  favorably  or  un- 
favorably. 

(Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  called  for  the  reading  of  the  pro- 
posed amendment,  offered  by  Mr.  Woodbury,  and  the  same 
was  read  by  the  clerk.) 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  ask  that  the  clerk  read  the  reso- 
lution offered  by  me  yesterday. 

(Clerk  reads  as  follows:) 


106     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Eesolution  offered  by  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  so  amended  that  the 
house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of  three  hundred  mem- 
bers, which  shall  be  apportioned  by  the  legislature,  at  the 
first  session  after  a  United  States  census,  to  the  several  coun- 
ties of  the  state,  equally,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  according  to 
their  population  as  ascertained  at  the  next  preceding  United 
States  census.  The  county  commissioners  in  each  county, — 
or  in  lieu  of  the  county  commissioners  in  each  county,  such 
board  of  special  commissioners  in  each  county,  to  be  elected 
by  the  people  of  the  county,  as  may  for  that  purpose  be 
provided  by  law, — shall  on  the  first  Tuesday  of  June  next 
after  each  assignment  of  representatives  to  each  county, 
assemble  at  a  shire  town  of  their  respective  counties,  and 
proceed,  as  soon  as  may  be,  to  divide  the  same  into  repre- 
sentative districts  of  contiguous  territory,  so  as  to  apportion 
the  representatives  assigned  to  each  county,  equally,  as  nearly 
as  may  be,  according  to  the  relative  population  in  the  several 
districts  of  each  county,  and  such  districts  shall  be  so  formed 
that  no  town  or  ward  shall  be  divided  therefor.  Districts 
may  be  formed  for  one  or  more  representatives  as  the  con- 
tiguity of  territory  or  the  physical  and  social  relations  of 
the  towns  or  wards  may  warrant.  The  legislature  at  the 
next  session  after  such  division  of  the  counties  into  repre- 
sentative districts  may,  upon  appeal  by  a  town  or  ward, 
examine  the  classification  of  that  town  or  ward,  and  change 
the  district  lines  of  that  county  in  accordance  with  the  pro- 
visions of  this  article  if  it  shall  appear  that  injustice  has 
been  done. 

Mr.  Chairman — In  the  same  spirit  that  the  gentleman  from 
Woodstock  has  approached  this  subject,  I  approach  it — that 
of  inquiry — and  the  only  argument  I  shall  offer  to  you  to-day 
in  support  of  the  resolution  I  have  presented  will  be  the 
argument  shown  by  the  facts. 

I  began  figuring  on  this  question  with  an  endeavor  to  pre- 
serve the  town  system.  In  the  Convention  of  1876,  I  voted 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  107 

for  that  system  and  against  the  district  system.  Confronted 
with  the  facts,  as  my  tables  show  them,  I  am  convinced  that 
the  town  system  is  only  a  question  of  time,  and  a  very  brief 
time  at  that. 

When  we  build  or  amend  Constitutions,  we  do  so  with 
reference  to  their  permanency.  Constitutions  are  not  like 
statutes,  that  can  be  amended  at  the  next  session  of  the 
legislature,  or,  if  trouble  comes,  at  a  special  session  of  the 
legislature.  We  should  endeavor,  in  amending  this  Consti- 
tution, to  build  for  permanency,  as  the  founders  did  in  their 
day.  They  could  not  foresee  the  conditions  that  exist  at 
this  time,  any  more  than  we  can  foresee  the  conditions  that 
will  exist  one  hundred  years  hence.  In  considering  this 
subject,  if  we  do  not  present  a  plan  which  lasts  more  than 
ten,  fifteen,  or  twenty  years,  we  shall  deserve  to  have  that 
plan  rejected  by  the  people. 

We  are  sent  here  to  submit  a  plan  to  the  people.  As  their 
representatives,  or  delegates,  we  are  not  to  inquire  wholly 
what  the  people  will  ratify.  We  are  not  in  a  position  of  the 
people  submitting  to  us  a  proposition  that  we  approve,  but 
of  submitting  to  them  what  we,  in  our  collective  wisdom,  ap- 
prove. No  plan  that  we  may  agree  upon  will  suit  everybody 
in  all  its  details. 

Let  us  now  consider  the  town  system.  If  we  preserve  it, 
there  is  no  possibility  of  limiting  the  membership  of  the 
house.  You  may  fix  it  at  300  to-day,  and  the  next  census 
with  an  increase  of  population  is  bound  to  increase  that  mem- 
bership. So  the  question  of  limitation  upon  the  basis  of  the 
town  system  may  be  dismissed  at  once. 

If  you  vote  to  preserve  under  any  plan  the  town  system, 
your  work  becomes  merely  a  temporary  expedient.  There 
can  be  no  material  reduction  of  the  house  under  the  town 
system  that  is  likely  to  be  acceptable  to  the  people  of  the  state. 
Various  plans  have  been  presented  here  and  others  will  be, 
but  you  cannot  present  a  plan  that  is  likely  to  be  adopted 
unless  it  represents  the  approbation  on  the  one  hand  of  the 
small  towns,  and  on  the  other  hand  the  large  towns  and  cities 
of  the  state. 


108    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

In  the  legislature  of  1901  we  had  a  representation  of  397. 
The  coming  house  has  a  representation  of  393.  It  is  not 
material,  therefore,  which  house  we  take  for  comparison. 
Of  these  397  representatives,  203  were  from  wards  and  towns 
which  have  more  than  one  representative;  146  were  from 
towns  having  one  representative,  and  48  from  pro-rated 
towns.  Any  plan  which  seeks  to  make  the  reduction  wholly 
in  the  large  towns  and  cities  must  of  necessity  fail,  because 
the  large  towns  and  cities  have  to-day  unequal  representation, 
for  it  takes  600  inhabitants  for  the  first  representative  and 
1,200  additional  population  for  each  representative  after  the 
first.  I  submit  the  following  tables  for  your  consideration. 

Table  No.   1,  showing  population  of  towns  and    representation 
thereof  on  the  following  bases: 

600  for  first  and  1,200  for  additional. 
700  for  first  and  1,300  for  additional. 
700  for  first  and  1,400  for  additional. 
800  for  first  and  1,400  for  additional. 
800  for  first  and  1,600  for  additional. 
900  for  first  and  1,800  for  additional. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902. 
ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY. 


109 


B 

o 

1 

1 

i 

i 

I 

i 

TOWNS. 

X3 

43 

1 

PH 

T3 

i 

700  and  1 

700  and  1 

T3 

i 

H3 

3 

73 

i 

Atkinson  

442 

Auburn  

682 

i 

Brentwood  

957 

i 

1 

1 

i 

1 

i 

Candia  

1  057 

i 

1 

1 

i 

I 

i 

Chester.. 

861 

i 

I 

1 

i 

1 

Danville  

615 

i 

Deerfield  

1  162 

i 

I 

1 

i 

1 

i 

Derry  ... 

3  583 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

East  Kingston  

496 

EDDinjr 

1  641 

1 

I 

1 

1 

I 

1 

Exeter  

4  922 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

Fremont  

749 

1 

1 

1 

Greenland  . 

607 

1 

Hampstead  

823 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Hampton  

1,209 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Hampton  Falls  

560 

Kensington                . 

524 

Kingston  

1,132 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Londonderry    

1  408 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Newcastle            .            ... 

581 

Newfields 

647 

1 

Newington  .  .  . 

390 

Newmarket  

2  892 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Newton 

924 

1 

1 

1 

] 

I 

I 

Novtli  Hampton 

812 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

North  wood  

1,304 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Nottingham  

638 

1 

Plaistow 

1  027 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

1 

Portsmouth,  10,637: 
Ward  1  

2,644 

9, 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

Ward  2  

3  105 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Ward  3                                  . 

1  391 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  4 

1  843 

2 

1 

1 

Ward  5  

1,654 

1 

1 

1 

Raymond.. 

1,100 

1 

1 

1 

Rye 

1  142 

1 

1 

1 

2,041 

? 

2 

1 

Sandown  

400 

Seabrook  

1,497 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

South  Hampton.       . 

297 

Stratham 

718 

1 

1 

1 

Windham  

641 

1 

Total                ...     .         

51  118 

44 

36 

35 

31 

31 

27 

Present  basis,  8  towns  pro-rated;  700  and  1,300,  14  towns  pro-rated; 
700  and  1,400,  14  towns  pro-rated;  806  and  1,400,  16  towns  pro-rated; 
800  and  1,600,  16  towns  pro-rated;  900  and  1,800,  19  towns  pro-rated. 


110     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
STRAFFORD  COUNTY. 


i 

t 

i 

1 

i 

i 

g 

TOWNS. 

Populati 

T3 

i 

•a 
§ 

1 

•73 

a 

c3 

1 

T3 

9 

800  and  1 

ft 

Barrington  

1,208 

i 

1 

1 

i 

1 

i 

Dover,  13,207: 
Ward  1  

2  387 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

i 

Ward  2  

3,018 

3 

9, 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Ward  3  

2  384 

2 

2 

9, 

2 

1 

1 

Ward  4  

3  851 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

Ward  5  

1,567 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Durham  

996 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Farmington  

2  265 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

I 

Lee  

545 

Madbury  

336 

Middleton     .     ,   . 

300 

Milton  

1,625 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

New  Durham  

625 

Rochester,  8,466: 
Ward  1  

1  131 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  2 

1  222 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  3  

1,510 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  4  

1  901 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  5 

964 

I 

1 

1 

Ward  6  

1  738 

1 

1 

1 

Rollinsford  

1  701 

1 

1 

1 

Somersworth,  7,023: 
Ward  1  

1  285 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  2  .... 

1  167 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  3  

1,104 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  4.  

2  183 

2 

2 

2 

1 

Ward  5  

1,284 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Stratford  

1  040 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Total  

39  337 

89 

29 

29 

29 

24 

24 

Present  basis,  3  towns  pro-rated;  700  and  1,300,  4  towns  pro-rated; 
700  and  1,400,  4  towns  pro-rated;  800  and  1,400,  4  towns  pro-rated; 
800  and  1,600,  4  towns  pro-rated;  900  and  1,800,  4  towns  pro-rated. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY. 


Ill 


d 
s 

1 

8 

8 

8 

8 

8 

TOWNS. 

Populate 

T3 
- 
c3 

•d 

I 
t- 

700  and  1 

13 

- 
- 

T5 

•73 
§ 

Alton  

1,500 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Barnstead                  ...         

1  072 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Belmont 

1  294 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Center  Harbor 

422 

Gilford  

661 

1 

Gilmanton.           .         

1,100 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Laconia* 

8  042 

7 

3 

6 

fi 

5 

4 

Ward  1  

Ward  2  

Ward  3                 .            ... 

Ward  4 

Meredith  

1,713 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

New  Hampton  

852 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Sanbornton        ....              .... 

944 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Tilton 

1  926 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Total  

19,526 

17 

14 

14 

14 

13 

11 

Present  basis,  1  town  pro-rated ;  700  and  1,300,  2  towns  pro-rated; 
700  and  1,400,  2  towns  pro-rated;  800  and  1,400,  2  towns  pro-rated; 
800  and  1,600,  2  towns  pro-rated;  900  and  1,800,  10  towns  pro-rated. 


*The  ward  lines  of  Laconia  have  been  changed  since  the  census  of  1990  and 
die  number  of  wards  decreased  from  6  to  4. 


112     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


CARROLL  COUNTY. 


a 

n 

1 

8 

8 

"^ 

1 

i 

8 

TOWNS. 

Populati 

600  and  1 

n3 

a 

o3 

8 

t- 

700  and  1 

T3 

a 

rt 

800  and  1 

900  and  1 

Albany  

210 

Bartlett  
Brookfield  

1,013 
296 

1 

Chatham    

269 

Conway         .                .           .... 

3  154 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Eaton 

365 

Effi  ngham  

600 

1 

Freedom        . 

594 

Hart's  Location  

38 

Jackson  .            .  .         

622 

1 

Madison  »  

529 

Moultonborough  

901 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Ossip66       .                                      •  . 

1  479 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Sandwich  

1,077 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Tain  worth  .       ...             

1  050 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Tuftonborou0"!! 

663 

1 

Wakefield  

1,645 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

AVolfeboroufifh 

2  390 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

Total  

16,895 

14 

10 

10 

10 

9 

9 

Present  basis,  7  towns  pro-rated;  700  and  1,300,  10  towns  pro-rated; 
700  and  1,400,  10  towns  pro-rated;  800  and  1,400,  10  towns  pro-rated, 
800  and  1,600,  10  towns  pro-rated;  900  and  1,800,  10  towns  pro-rated. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY. 


113 


a 
o 

i 

1 

i 

1 

i 

g 

TOWNS. 

I 

! 

'd 

1 

700  and  ] 

T3 

§ 
1 

800  and  ] 

i 

c« 

1 

Allenstown  

1,496 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Andover  

1,179 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Boscawen  
Bow 

1,455 
617 

1 

Bradford  

805 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Canterbury  

821 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Chicliester          .  .     .           .... 

598 

Concord,  19,632: 
Ward  1  

1  911 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

"Ward  2     

753 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  3                       

1  043 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  4  

3  644 

3 

3 

3 

3 

?, 

2 

Ward  5  

2  609 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

Ward  6            

3  390 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Ward  7 

3  178 

3 

2 

2 

2 

9 

2 

Ward  8  

1  212 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  9  

1  892 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Danbury 

654 

I 

Dunbarton  

551 

Epsom  

771 

1 

1 

1 

Franklin,  5,846: 
Ward  1 

1  572 

1 

1 

t 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  2  

2  365 

2 

2 

9, 

?, 

1 

1 

Ward  3            

1  909 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Henniker  . 

1  507 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Hill  

608 

1 

Hooksett    

1  665 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Hopkinton  .               .  .             .         . 

1  652 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Loudon                                       . 

960 

I 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Newbury  

424 

New  London  

768 

1 

1 

1 

Northfield 

1  227 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Pembroke  

3,183 

3 

?, 

a 

?, 

?, 

?, 

Pittsfield  

2  129 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

Salisbury    ... 

604 

1 

Sutton 

776 

1 

1 

1 

1,358 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Webster  

496 

Wilmot     

653 

1 

Total 

52  430 

47 

37 

36 

31 

29 

26 

Present  basis,  4  towns  pro-rated;  700  and  1,300,  9  towns  pro-rated; 
700  and  1,400,  9  towns  pro-rated;  800  and  1,400,  12  towns  pro-rated; 
800  and  1,600,  12  towns  pro-rated;  900  and  1,800,  14  towns  pro-rated. 
8 


114     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY. 


§ 

1 

1 

1 

s 

8 

8 

TOWNS. 

1 

I 

'O 

a 

m 

700  and  1 

"d 
a 

c3 

1 

800  and  1 

1 

'O 

i 

1,231 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

x 

Antri  in  

1  366 

1 

j 

1 

1 

I 

i 

Bedford. 

1  148 

] 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

Bennington  

667 

1 

Brookline  

606 

1 

Deering  

486 

Francestown  

693 

1 

Goffstown  

2  528 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

i 

Greenfield 

605 

1 

Greenville  

1,608 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

i 

Hancock 

642 

1 

Hillsborough  

2,254 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

i 

Hollis  

910 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

Hudson  . 

1  261 

1 

1 

I 

1 

I 

\ 

Litchfield  

243 

L/yndeborough  ..  .                .    . 

686 

1 

Manchester,  56,987: 
Ward    1  

3,625 

3 

8 

3 

3 

2 

2 

Ward    2.   . 

5  501 

5 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

Ward    3 

7  320 

6 

6 

5 

5 

5 

4 

Ward    4  

6  922 

6 

5 

5 

5 

4 

4 

Ward    5.  .  . 

9  094 

g 

7 

6 

g 

Q 

5 

Ward    6 

4  880 

4 

4 

3 

Q 

Q 

Q 

Ward    7  

1  757 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Ward    8  

5,508 

5 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

Ward    9  

7,986 

7 

6 

6 

6 

5 

4 

Ward  10  •        

4  394 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

Msison 

358 

Merrimack  

1,234 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

Milford  

3  739 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

2 

453 

Nashua,  23,898: 
Ward  1 

2  384 

2 

2 

2 

2 

I 

1 

Ward  2  

2,274 

2 

2 

2 

2 

I 

1 

Ward  3  

3  476 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Ward  4 

1  570 

1 

1 

1 

I 

I 

1 

Ward  5  

1,651 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

Ward  6  

1  440 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

Ward  7 

3  477 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Ward  8  

3,082 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Ward  9  

4  544 

4 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

New  Boston 

1  002 

1 

1 

1 

I 

1 

1 

911 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Pelham  

875 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Peterborough        . 

2  527 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

I 

Sharon  

122 

Temple  

313 

Weare  

1,553 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Wilton  

1,696 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Windsor  

38 

Total  

112,640 

96 

8? 

77 

77 

68 

61 

Present  basis,  7  towns  pro-rated;  700  and  1,300, 12  towns  pro-rated; 
700  and  1,400,  13  towns  pro-rated;  800  and  1,400,  13  towns  pro-rated; 
800  and  1,600, 13  towns  pro-rated;  900  and  1,800,  14  towns  pro-rated. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902. 
CHESHIRE  COUNTY. 


115 


§ 

i 

i 

i 

1 

i 

g 

TOWNS. 

45 

1 

PH 

T3 

9 

"d 

i 

•a 
§ 

1 

'd 
§ 

13 
i 

T3 

i 

Alstead... 

799 

i 

I 

i 

Chesterfield..   

981 

i 

1 

l 

1 

1 

Dublin  

620 

i 

Fitzwilliara.  .                         ..    . 

459 

Oilsum  .  . 

590 

Harrisville  

791 

i 

1 

l 

Hinsdale  

,933 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

J  afire  y  

891 

2 

1 

l 

1 

1 

1 

Keene,  9,165: 
Ward  1 

488 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

Ward  2  

,896 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  3  

926 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  4.                             .     . 

384 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

I 

Ward  5  

,471 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Marlborough  

524 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Marlow  

488 

Nelson 

295 

Richmond  

987 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Kindge  

855 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Roxbury.    ...                     . 

100 

Stoddard 

367 

Sullivan  

287 

Surry  

250 

Swanzey  .     .  .         

1  570 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Troy 

1  527 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Walpole  

2  693 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

Westmoreland  

875 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

^V^inchester.  .             .       . 

2  274 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

Total  

31,321 

<>6 

21 

21 

19 

18 

14 

Present  basis,  8  towns  pro-rated;  700  and  1,300,  9  towns  pro-rated; 
700  and  1,400,  9  towns  pro-rated;  800  and  1,400,  11  towns  pro-rated; 
800  and  1,600, 11  towns  pro-rated;  900  and  1,800,  13  towns  pro-rated. 


116     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY. 


d 

o 

i 

i 

i 

1 

t 

1 

TOWNS. 

Populati 

'd 

700  and  ] 

73 

a 

I 

1 

800  and  J 

T3 

i 

Acwortli 

594 

Charlestown  

1  473 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Clareinont            .                    .... 

6  498 

5 

5 

5 

5 

4 

4 

962 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Croydon  

372 

Groshen 

345 

Granth  a  rn 

374 

Langdon      

339 

Leinpster 

391 

Newport  

3,126 

3 

2 

9, 

?, 

2 

2 

Plainfield            

1  114 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Springfield 

439 

Sunapee  

946 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Unity 

572 

\Vashington 

464 

Total  

18,009 

1?, 

11 

11 

11 

10 

10 

Present  basis,  9  towns  pro-rated;  700  and  1,300,  9  towns  pro-rated; 
700  and  1,400,  9  towns  pro-rated;  800  and  1,400,  9  towns  pro-rated; 
800  and  1,600,  9  towns  pro-rated;  900  and  1,800,  9  towns  pro-rated. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902. 
GRAFTON  COUNTY. 


117 


d 

o 

1 

i 

i 

i 

i 

1 

TOWNS. 

Populati 

73 
I 

700  and  ] 

700  and  ] 

800  and  ] 

nS 

i 

900  and] 

Alexandria..  .         

630 

1 

Ashland 

1  289 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

Bath 

1  006 

1 

1 

1 

I 

i 

I 

Benton  

209 

Bethlehem  

1  261 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

Bridgewater                     

244 

Bristol  

1,600 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

Campton  

999 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

Canaan  

1  444 

1 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

Dorchester                       

308 

Easton  

249 

Ellsworth  

107 

Enfield  

1  845 

2 

1 

1 

1 

i 

3 

Franconia  

655 

1 

•Graf  ton  

748 

1 

1 

1 

346 

Hanover                 

1  884 

2 

1 

1 

1 

i 

1 

Haverhill 

3  414 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

214 

Holderness  

662 

1 

LandaiY  .                 

500 

Lebanon  

4,965 

4 

4 

4 

3 

3 

3 

541 

Lisbon  

2  221 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

1 

Littleton                

4  066 

3 

3 

3 

3 

3 

2 

Liverniore 

191 

Lyman  

426 

Lyme  

1  080 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Monroe               ..         

545 

•Orange                          ...       . 

213 

Orford  

890 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Piermont  

637 

1 

Plymouth  ...             

1  972 

2 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Rumney                                 .    .  . 

837 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Thornton  

552 

Warren   

799 

1 

1 

1 

Waterville            

50 

W^entworth  .  .                               ... 

617 

1 

\Voodstock 

628 

1 

Total  

40  844 

35 

26 

25 

22 

21 

18 

Present  basis,  15  towns  pro-rated,  700  and  1,300,  21  towns  pro-rated: 
700  and  1,400,  21  towns  pro-rated;  800  and  1,400,  23  towns  pro-rated; 
800  and  1 ,600,  23  towns  pro-rated ;  900  and  1,800,  25  towns  pro-rated. 


118     JOUHNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
coos  COUNTY. 


c 

0 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

TOWNS. 

Populati 

600  and  1 

700  and  1 

700  and  ] 

1 

73 

3 

900  and  1 

Berlin,  8,886: 
Ward  1  

3,076 

3 

9, 

8 

2 

2 

2 

Ward  2 

3  324 

3 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Ward  3 

2  486 

j> 

2 

2 

2 

2 

1 

Carroll                  

710 

1 

1 

1 

Clarksville 

307 

Colebrook  

1,876 

<? 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Columbia        .                     

690 

1 

Dalton 

592 

Dunimer 

349 

Errol 

305 

1,797 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Jefferson.  .                       

1  080 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Lancaster  

3,190 

3 

2 

2 

2 

2 

2 

Milan  

Millsfield                                     .   .  . 

1,135 
41 

Northumberland  

1,977 

8 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Pittsburg          

687 

1 

Randolph 

137 

Shelburne 

283 

Stark                    .                

733 

1 

1 

1 

Stewartstown 

1  150 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Stratford  

968 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

1 

Whitefield 

2,157 

9 

2 

2 

1 

1 

1 

Total               

29,050 

?fi 

?0 

19 

16 

16 

15 

Present  basis,  7  towns  pro-rated;  700  and  1,300,  9  towns  pro-rated; 
700  and  1,400,  9  towns  pro-rated;  800  and  1,400,  11  towns  pro-rated; 
800  and  1,600, 11  towns  pro- rated;  900  and  1,800,  11  towns  pro-rated. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902. 
SUMMARY  BY  COUNTIES. 


119 


1 

i 

i 

i 

i 

i 

COUNTIES. 

•a 

700  and  ] 

t 

p 
ce 

1 

t 
1 

800  and  ] 

*& 

Belknap  

17 

14 

14 

14 

13 

11 

Carroll              

14 

10 

10 

10 

9 

9 

Cli6shire 

26 

21 

21 

19 

18 

14 

Coos  

26 

20 

19 

16 

16 

15 

Graf  ton  

35 

26 

25 

22 

21 

IS- 

Hillsborou01!"1          . 

96 

82 

77 

77 

68 

61 

M6rrimack                              . 

47 

37 

36 

31 

29 

26 

Rockingham  

44 

36 

36 

31 

31 

27 

Straff  ord  

32 

29 

29 

29 

24 

24 

Sullivan  . 

12 

11 

11 

11 

10 

10 

Total  

349 

286 

277 

260 

239 

215 

Number  of  towns  pro-rated : 


COUNTIES. 

600  and  1,200. 

700  and  1,300. 

8 

1 

800  and  1,600. 

i-T 

«a 

i 

1 

2 

2 

2 

2 

3 

Carroll        

7 

10 

10 

10 

10 

10 

Cheshire                  

8 

9 

9 

11 

11 

13 

Coos 

7 

9 

9 

11 

11 

11 

15 

21 

21 

23 

23 

25 

Hillsborough  

7 

12 

12 

13 

13 

14 

Merrimack        .                

4 

9 

9 

12 

12 

14 

Rockinfham 

8 

14 

14 

16 

16 

19- 

Straff  ord  

3 

4 

4 

4 

4 

4 

Sullivan            

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

9 

Total 

69 

99 

99 

111 

111 

122 

The  last  legislature  designated  the  years  that  towns  of  less  than  600 
inhabitants  could  be  represented  in  the  legislature  for  the  next  ten 
years.  Of  the  69  of  these  towns  44  are  represented  in  1902,  42  in  1904, 
43  in  1906,  42  in  1908,  and  43  in  1910.  There  is  representation  from 
nearly  two  thirds  of  these  towns  every  session.  It  may  be  safely 
assumed  that  under  any  of  the  foregoing  bases  of  representation  that 


120     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


of  the  towns  pro-rated  two  thirds  of  the  total  number  will  be  repre- 
sented every  session.  Legislatures  in  discharging  this  constitutional 
duty  are  disposed  to  be  liberal. 

The  following  table  will  show  the  total  membership  of  the  legisla- 
ture under  all  of  the  foregoing  bases  of  representation: 


BASIS  OF  REPRESENTATION. 

a 

* 

1-H 

^3 

a 

a 

•e 
g 

i-T 
T3 

d 

• 

a 

a 

e« 

a 

1 

i 

i 

1 

§ 

Membership  from  towns  and  wards 

entitled  to  representation  every 
session         .             .           .  . 

286 

277 

260 

239 

215 

Membership  from  two  thirds  of  pro- 

rated towns  

66 

66 

74 

74 

82 

Total  membership  

352 

343 

334 

313 

297 

No  amendment  of  the  constitution  relative  to  representation  is 
likely  to  be  operative  before  the  legislature  of  1905.  Another  census 
will  be  taken  in  1910.  The  foregoing  totals  will  therefore  apply  to 
only  those  legislatures  of  from  1905  to  1911.  After  the  legislature  of 
1911  they  will  increase  with  our  increase  of  population. 

TABLE  TWO. 


COUNTY. 

1 
I 

0 

w 

District  system, 
house  of  300. 

el 

05  OQ 

Rockingham             

52 

37 

41 

Straff  ord  

34 

29 

27 

Carroll     

19 

12 

15 

Belknap                               

18 

14 

14 

51 

38 

39 

100 

82 

79 

Cheshire  

32 

23 

25 

Sullivan  

21 

13 

15 

Graf  ton             

42 

30 

35 

Coos  

28 

22 

23 

397 

300 

313 

THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902. 


121 


TABLE  THREE. 

There  are  3  towns  of  less  than  100  population. 
There  are  5  towns  of  from  100  to  200  population. 
There  are  14  towns  of  from  200  to  300  population. 
There  are  17  towns  of  from  300  to  400  population. 
There  are  13  towns  of  from  400  to  500  population. 
There  are  16  towns  of  from  500  to  600  population. 
There  are  31  towns  of  from  600  to  700  population. 
There  are  12  towns  of  from  700  to  800  population. 

Total,       111 

My  amendment  provides  for  a  house  limited  to  300  mem- 
bers. Let  u^  compare  the  reduction  under  my  amendment 
with  the  reduction  under  the  town  system  that  will  give  a 
house  of  313  members,  the  basis  for  which  would  be  800 
inhabitants  for  the  first  representative  and  1,600  for  each 
additional  representative.  In  this  comparison  I  have  pro- 
rated towns  not  entitled  to  continuous  representation  at  the 
ratio  provided  by  the  last  legislature,  that  is  practically  two 
thirds  of  the  towns  being  represented  at  every  session  of  the 
legislature. 


COUNTY. 

District  system. 

3  ® 

o  ^^ 

*M 

rsi 

OrO  a 
EH 

14 

14 

Carroll                             

12 

15 

Cheshire                                      

23 

25 

Coos                                                       

22 

23 

Graf  ton                            

30 

35 

82 

79 

38 

39 

37 

41 

Straff  ord               

29 

27 

Sullivan                                

13 

15 

300 

313 

122     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Either  method  gives  practically  the  same  representation  to 
the  counties  of  the  state.  If  you  take  your  counties  as  units, 
you  will  find  it  makes  no  material  difference  in  the  strength 
of  these  localities  whether  you  adopt  the  district  system  or 
the  town  in  providing  for  a  house  of  300  members,  the  real 
distinction  being  that  under  the  district  system  you  can  per- 
manently limit  the  house  to  300,  while  under  the  town  sys- 
tem the  limitation  lasts  only  three  or  four  legislatures  at  best. 

There  is  no  equality  in  the  town  system.  A  town  which 
has  but  600  inhabitants  has  one  representative,  and  another 
town  which  has  1,799  has  no  more.  In  Merrimack  county, 
Allenstown,  with  1,496  population,  and  Hookset^  with  1,665, 
a  total  of  3,161,  and  which  are  contiguous  towns,  have  two 
representatives,  while  Pembroke,  a  neighbor,  with  only  twen- 
ty-two more  population,  has  three.  Hopkinton  and  Henni- 
ker,  having  a  population  of  3,159,  have  two,  while  Pembroke, 
with  only  a  few  more,  has  three. 

In  Carroll  county,  Wakefield  and  Ossipee,  with  a  joint 
population  of  3,124,  have  two  representatives,  while  Con  way, 
with  3,154  population,  has  three  representatives. 

In  Cheshire  county,  Marlborough  and  Swanzey,  two  con- 
tiguous towns,  having  3,094  population,  have  two  represen- 
tatives, while  Jaffrey,  with  a  population  of  1,891,  has  the  same 
number. 

In  Straff  or  d  county,  New  Durham,  with  625  population, 
has  one  representative,  while  Eollinsford,  with  a  population 
of  1,701,  has  no  more. 

In  Grafton  county,  the  towns  of  Alexandria,  Franconia, 
Holderness,  Piermont,  and  Wentworth,  with  a  combined 
population  of  3,201,  have  five  representatives,  while  Haver- 
hill,  with  3,414,  has  but  three;  Littleton,  with  4,066  popu- 
lation, has  but  three  representatives,  and  Lebanon,  with  4,965 
population,  has  but  four.  Haverhill,  Lebanon,  Littleton,  En- 
field,  Hanover,  Lisbon,  and  Plymouth,  large  towns  in  Graf- 
ton  county,  with  a  population  of  20,367,  have  a  representation 
of  eighteen,  while  the  remainder  of  the  county,  excluding  the 
towns  not  sending  representatives,  with  a  population  of 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  12& 

17,847,  or  nearly  3,000  less,  have  twenty-four  representatives; 
that  is,  six  more  than  the  large  towns.  In  the  large  town& 
of  Graf  ton  county  there  is  one  representative  to  every  1,131 
population,  while  the  small  towns  have  a  representative  to- 
every  743. 

In  Sullivan  county,  Claremont  and  Newport,  with  a  popu- 
lation of  9,624,  or  about  half  the  county's  population,  have 
eight  representatives,  while  the  remainder  of  the  towns  of 
the  county  have  thirteen  representatives. 

In  Belknap  county,  Center  Harbor,  Gilford,  and  Sanborn- 
ton,  with  a  population  of  1,935,  have  three  representatives^ 
while  Meredith,  with  1,713  population,  has  but  one. 

In  Coos  county,  Lancaster,  with  a  population  of  3,190,  ha& 
three  representatives,  while  Carroll,  Columbia,  Pittsburg, 
and  Stark,  with  2,820  population,  300  less  than  Lancaster,, 
have  four  representatives.  Berlin,  with  over  three  times  the 
population  of  these  small  towns,  which  have  four  represen- 
tatives, has  but  eight. 

In  Hillsborough  county,  Milford,  with  a  population  of 
3,739,  has  three  representatives,  while  Bennington,  Brookline,. 
Francestown,  Greenfield,  Hancock,  and  Lyndeborough,  with 
a  population  of  3,899,  about  100  more  than  Milford,  have  six 
representatives. 

In  Rockingham  county,  Exeter,  with  a  population  of  4,922, 
has  four  representatives,  while  Auburn,  Danville,  Greenland,, 
Newfields,  Nottingham,  Stratham,  and  Windham,  with  a 
population  of  4,548,  have  seven  representatives.  Portsmouth^ 
with  over  twice  the  population  of  these  towns,  has  but  nine 
representatives. 

The  deductions  I  draw  from  the  examination  of  this  ques- 
tion are  these: 

The  town  system  does  not  give  equality  of  representation. 
The  small  towns  gain  at  the  expense  of  the  large  towns  ano! 
cities. 

We  have  reached  the  point  where  the  remedy  lies,  not  in 
temporary  expedients,  but  in  a  change  of  system. 

We  must  limit  the  membership  in  the  house  or  that  body 


124     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

will  become  in  the  immediate  future  most  unwieldy  and  a 
travesty  on  popular  government. 

Any  lasting  limitation  of  membership,  based  upon  the 
town  system,  will  pro-rate  so  many  towns  that  the  system  will 
exist  but  in  name. 

The  large  towns  and  cities  will  lose  nothing  by  a  change 
to  the  district  system.  The  small  towns  will  be  as  well  off 
•eventually  under  the  district  system,  being  grouped  with 
other  towns,  as  they  will  be  under  the  town  system,  to  be  rep- 
resented only  a  part  of  the  time. 

The  district  system  is  one  of  equality  and  must  be  event- 
ually adopted.  If  we  do  not  adopt  a  plan  which  meets  our 
approval,  how  can  we  expect  it  to  meet  the  approval  of  the 
people. 

The  Chairman — Will  the  gentleman  from  Concord  suspend 
a  moment. 

The  President  of  the  Convention — Mr.  Aldrich  of  Little- 
ton desires  to  leave  the  chair,  and  I  appoint  Judge  Cross  as 
chairman  of  the  committee. 

(Mr.  Cross  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Lyford — We  are  passing  through  the  same  state  of 
affairs  that  confronted  the  state  of  Massachusetts  in  1850, 
when  a  Constitutional  Convention  was  held.  In  that  Con- 
vention were  such  men  as  Nathaniel  P.  Banks,  George  S. 
Boutwell,  Henry  Wilson,  and  other  of  the  old-time  leaders 
of  the  state.  Many  of  them  came  from  the  little  republics, 
as  they  are  called,  and  they  considered  the  question  of  repre- 
sentation with  reference  to  the  towns  as  well  as  with  reference 
to  the  cities  of  the  state.  It  is  urged  here  that  we  preserve 
the  little  republics.  Nothing  in  the  change  of  the  basis  of 
representation  would  disturb  these  little  republics  in  the 
least.  Our  Constitution  was  changed  in  1876,  and  the  elec- 
tions of  the  towns  for  local  affairs  was  changed  to  a  differ- 
ent time.  The  town  elections  will  remain  the  same  under  the 
district  system. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  125 

The  district  system  has  stood  the  test  of  time  for  fifty  years 
in  the  state  of  Massachusetts,  and  I  hope  the  gentleman  from 
Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  who  has  been  in  Massachusetts  for 
several  years,  may  give  us  the  benefit  of  his  knowledge  of  the 
district  system  in  that  state. 

In  conclusion,  I  desire  to  say  that  I  have  submitted  my 
plan  for  the  district  system  for  information,  but  I  have  no 
pride  in  the  phraseology  of  the  resolution.  I  am  entirely 
willing  it  should  be  amended,  or  something  better  substituted 
in  its  place.  I  came  here  without  prejudice  on  this  subject, 
and  I  desire  equally  with  all  of  you  to  present  that  plan  to 
the  people  which  we,  ourselves,  can  approve  after  the  fullest 
consideration. 

Mr.  Osgood  of  Nelson — Mr.  Chairman,  the  present  popu- 
lation, as  I  understand  it,  recognizes  a  certain  superiority  of 
the  smaller  towns  in  its  representation  as  compared  to  the 
population  of  the  larger  ones.  It  strikes  me  that  the  district 
system  is  adapted  to  discriminate  against  these  smaller  towns, 
which  the  present  system  favors.  And,  suppose,  as  one  of 
the  arguments  presented,  the  district  system  might  last  quite 
a  while,  it  would  not  last  forever,  any  more  than  the  town 
system  would  last  forever,  and  we  can  arrange  the  town  sys- 
tem so  that  will  last  for  years. 

I  would  not  say  here — for  I  presume  a  large  proportion  of 
the  people  would  not  concede  the  fact — that  a  rural  popula- 
tion, as  a  whole,  is  superior  to  the  population  in  our  cities. 
Now  the  present  proportion  recognizes  that  fact — as  I  believe 
it  is  a  fact — in  the  method  in  which  it  has  distributed  the 
representation  among  the  smaller  towns,  as  compared  with 
that  of  the  larger  towns  and  cities.  The  population  of  many 
of  these  large  towns  is  largely  made  up  of  foreigners,  and  on 
that  account  we  get  legislation  that  we  would  not  get  were  it 
not  for  that  foreign  vote.  I  refer  to  one  instance  with  refer- 
ence to  the  preservation  of  deer.  Where  I  reside,  the  deer 
is  getting  to  be  a  nuisance,  but  not  as  much  as  it  will  be  in 
the  course  of  time.  In  my  section  of  the  state,  there  is  a 


126    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

penalty  for  killing  deer  at  any  time,  although  in  certain  sec- 
tions of  the  state  they  have,,  of  course,  open  seasons.  Now 
that  legislation,  I  venture  to  say,  never  could  have  been 
•enacted  but  for  the  votes  from  these  cities,  and  of  men  hav- 
ing no  interest  in  the  question  whatever. 

The  gentleman  who  has  spoken  last,  as  I  understand  it, 
•doubles  the  population  that  requires  an  additional  repre- 
sentative over  what  the  present  portion  now  is.  Of  course, 
as  this  proportion  is  doubled,  the  large  towns  are  discrimin- 
ated against  to  that  extent.  But  they  are  discriminated 
against  now,  and  if  it  is  right  to  discriminate  against  them 
at  all,  I  see  no  reason  why  it  is  not  right  to  discriminate 
against  them  further.  Perhaps  others  cannot  look  at  this 
from  my  standpoint,  but  I  believe  that  the  small  towns  should 
be  favored  with  reference  to  its  representation  in  the  legis- 
lature of  this  state. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport — Gentlemen  of  the  committee,  as 
I  introduced  a  resolution  yesterday  upon  the  subject  now  be- 
fore us,  I  think  it  appropriate  that  I  should  say  a  word  to  you 
with  reference  to  it.  All  of  these  resolutions  ought  to  be 
presented  to  the  committee  and  discussed,  before  we  select 
any  one  plan  and  call  it  better  than  the  rest.  It  may  be  that 
we  shall  make  a  combination  of  several  of  these  resolutions, 
in  order  to  get  something  that  will  be  acceptable  to  the  people. 

This,  it  seems  to  me,  ought  to  be  impressed  upon  the  minds 
in  this  Convention,  that  we  must  get  something  which  the 
people  will  ratify.  I  cannot  quite  agree  with  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  that  we  should  hit  upon  some- 
thing that  suits  us,  and  then  get  it  ratified  by  the  people 
if  possible.  If  we  are  to  secure  any  results  from  the  time 
spent  here,  we  must  get  something  that  the  people  will  ap- 
prove. 

It  does  not  appear  to  me  that  the  people  are  willing  to 
make  any  radical  change  in  the  method  of  their  representa- 
tion, and  I  think  as  you  have  talked  with  each  other  since 
'Coming  here,  you  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that  we  are 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  127 

not  prepared  to  overthrow  the  existing  order.  I,  for  one, 
hope  we  shall  not  make  any  great  change.  There  has  been 
a  good  deal  of  talk  about  a  large  house,  and  many  have  said 
it  was  a,  bad  thing.  But  why  call  it  that?  Does  not  all  that 
has  been  said  against  it  really  come  to  this,  that  we  shall 
need  more  seats  in  this  hall  if  we  keep  the  ratio  of  repre- 
sentation where  it  now  is?  I  submit  to  you  that  it  is  not  a 
very  bad  condition  of  affairs  to  have  a  large  house.  The 
legislature  meets  here  once  in  two  years,  sits  about  a  couple 
of  months,  does  its  business  with  despatch,  and  adjourns. 
Our  legislation  compares  favorably  with  that  of  any  other 
state,  so  far  as  I  can  ascertain.  Men  come  here  from  all  parts 
of  the  state,  mingle  with  each  other,  and  even  if  they  do  not 
all  occupy  the  floor  during  the  session,  receive  great  benefit 
from  their  associations,  and  return  to  their  constituents  bet- 
ter citizens  for  having  been  to  the  "  Great  and  General 
Court/'  It  is  a  school,  not  an  expensive  school,  either,  and 
one  for  which  the  state  can  well  afford  to  pay. 

Now,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  under  our  present  Con- 
stitution, each  town  and  city  ward  with  a  population  of  six 
hundred  is  entitled  to  one  representative.  I  am  in  favor  of 
retaining  this  provision.  The  cities  must  concede  that  in 
settling  on  any  population  basis,  when  the  Constitution  was 
last  amended,  there  was  a  concession  to  them  by  the  small 
towns,  because  there  is  a  larger  number  of  women  and  chil- 
dren in  the  cities  who  help  such  cities  to  secure  their  repre- 
sentation in  the  house  than  the  small  towns  have  in  propor- 
tion to  the  voters  of  each.  In  other  words,  there  are  more 
voters  in  proportion  to  the  population  in  the  small  towns  than 
in  the  large  towns  and  cities.  But  I,  for  one,  am  in  favor  of 
letting  our  representation  rest  on  the  basis  of  population,  as 
a  measure  of  compromise,  for  I  think  our  first  move  must  be 
in  the  nature  of  a  compromise.  It  is  something  of  a  conces- 
sion for  the  towns  which  are  too  small  to  send  a  representative 
every  time,  to  consent  to  allow  representation  to  be  put  upon 
the  basis  of  six  hundred  people,  but  they  have  acceded  to  this 
once  and  we  have  no  reason  to  suppose  they  will  be  unwilling 
to  do  so  again. 


128    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Then,  for  the  next  and  each  succeeding  representative,  I 
would  make  the  increasing  mean  two  thousand.  I  say  two- 
thousand,  because  I  think  the  large  towns  and  cities  would 
object  to  making  the  number  larger.  This  plan  will  reduce 
the  house  seventy-five  members.  If  you  should  make  the- 
increasing  mean  larger  than  two  thousand,  you  are  going  ta 
cut  into  the  cities  and  large  towns  more  than  they  will  prob- 
ably stand.  As  I  said,  we  must  hit  upon  a  measure  of  com- 
promise, and  I  think  the  number  two  thousand  for  the  addi- 
tional representative  is  such  a  measure.  Some  may  want 
three  thousand,  but  that  will  go  harder  with  the  cities  than 
two  thousand,  and  two  thousand  is  a  great  deal  better  than 
twelve  hundred,  because  it  reduces  the  house,  as  I  have  saidr 
seventy-five  members. 

At  the  last  Constitutional  Convention,  where  this  matter- 
was  adjusted,  which  was  held  in  1876,  the  house  was  reduced' 
ninety  members,  the  apportionment  being  based  on  the  census 
of  1870,  so  we  really  have  been  thirty  years,  reckoning  up  to 
the  census  of  1900,  in  increasing  the  membership  of  the 
house  to  the  point  where  it  now  is.  It  is  said  that  if  we  re- 
tain the  town  system,  our  reduction  will  afford  relief  for  only 
ten  or  fifteen  years,  but  the  arrangement  of  1876  has,  as  a 
matter  of  fact,  stood  about  thirty  years,  and  since  we  now 
propose  to  increase  our  mean  from  1,200  to  2,000,  which  is  an 
increase  of  two  thirds,  as  I  figure  it,  it  will  take  two  thirds 
as  long  again  for  us  to  get  back  to  our  present  number.  If 
this  be  true,  it  will  take  fifty  years  for  us  to  get  back  where- 
we  now  are. 

It  fairly  made  my  head  ache  to  follow  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  in  the  figures  that  he  gave,  and  I  think 
it  will  make  the  heads  of  our  farmers  ache  if  they  follow  those 
figures  when  his  district  system  is  put  before  them  for  rati- 
fication, if  this  should  ever  be  done,  and  I  don't  think  that 
they  will  come  to  the  conclusion  that  they  want  to  ratify 
something  which  is  so  hard  for  them  to  get  through  their 
heads. 

This,  then,  is  the  proposition  that  I  present  to  you.     It  is 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  129 

very  simple;  it  has  passed  through  the  polls  of  the  state  as  I 
have  offered  it,  except  that  we  have  raised  the  population  for 
each  additional  representative  from  1,200  to  2,000,  and  I 
think  there  is  no  doubt  hut  that  the  people  will  ratify  it 
again.  It  is  a  measure  of  compromise,  and  I  believe  will 
afford  relief  for  at  least  forty  years.  It  will  reduce  the  house 
from  393  members  to  318,  which  is  a  house  none  too  large  to 
do  our  business  carefully  and  well. 

Mr.  McAllister  of  Manchester — Mr.  Chairman,  if  it  is  in 
order,  I  move  that  the  statistics,  or  tables,  that  have  been 
prepared  and  read  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Ly- 
ford,  be  printed  for  the  use  of  this  Convention. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — Would  it  be  pertinent  to  suggest — 
I  have  no  tables  of  my  own,  but  I  am  a  searcher  of  light  in 
this  matter, — would  it  be  pertinent  to  suggest  that  there  are 
other  tables  which  have  been  prepared  and  presented,  and 
there  may  be  more,  and  I  presume  the  gentleman  from  Man- 
chester would  consent  to  include  those  other  tables  in  his 
motion  for  printing. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  That  this 
is  not  business  to  be  performed  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

The  Chairman — There  is  some  doubt  in  my  mind  about 
that.  My  first  impression  was  that  the  committee  could  not 
do  it,  and  it  is  the  impression  of  the  President  of  the  Conven- 
tion that  it  should  be  done  in  Convention,  and  I  will  so  rule. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton — For  the  purpose  of  getting  some 
expression  of  this  body,  as  to  how  large  they  wish  the  house 
to  be,  I  move  that  in  line  two  of  the  resolution  offered  by 
Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  the  word  "  three  "  be  stricken  out 
and  "  two  "  inserted,  so  that  it  shall  read,  "  that  the  house  of 
representatives  shall  consist  of  two  hundred  members,"  etc. 
I,  personally,  do  not  care  whether  it  is  100,  200,  or  300,  but  I 


130     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

think  the  committee  is  in  doubt  as  to  how  large  they  wish 
this  house  to  be,  and  under  this  motion  of  mine  there  is  a 
chance  to  get  an  expression  of  opinion  upon  that  point. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  not 
ready  at  this  time  to  pass  intelligently  upon  the  proposition, 
or  the  motion,  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Tilton.  We  are 
all  searching  for  information  and  light,  and  when  the  matter 
has  been  discussed  and  considered  fully,  it  then  will  be  time 
to  determine  this  matter.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  cannot 
determine  this  question  and  vote  intelligently  at  this  time. 

I  am  free  to  sa}>"  that  I  do  not  know  whether  the  house 
ought  to  be  300,  250,  200,  or  150.  It  strikes  me  that  it  is 
early  for  the  Convention  to  commit  itself  upon  so  important 
a  proposition. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — This  question  that  we  are  consid- 
ering seems  to  me  to  embrace  three  different  questions:  First, 
the  size  of  the  house;  second,  whether  representation  shall  be 
based  upon  population,  as  it  is  now;  third,  whether  or  no  we 
shall  preserve  the  town  system  of  representation  or  the  dis- 
trict system. 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  these  questions  can  be  disposed 
of  more  speedily  if  we  could,  on  the  coming  in  this  afternoon 
of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  consider  this  matter  in  these 
three  different  propositions.  If  the  gentlemen  who  have  in- 
troduced these  resolutions  will  put  them  in  shape  so  that  we 
can  consider  whether  we  favor  an  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution based  upon  population  or  the  number  of  voters,  so  we 
could  consider,  second,  what  we  would  fix  as  to  the  size  of 
the  house,  and,  third,  whether  we  would  favor  the  district 
system  of  representation  or  representation  by  towns  and 
wards;  then,  when  we  got  the  concensus  of  opinion  of  the 
Convention  on  these  matters,  some  progress  would  be  made 
and  the  resolutions  introduced  could  be  referred  to  a  standing 
committee  to  bring  in  a  resolution  in  accordance  with  the 
expression  of  the  Convention,  so  obtained. 

Some  of  these  resolutions,  in  some  respects,  I  favor,  and  in 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  131 

others  I  do  not.     It  seems  to  me  that  we  shall  save  time  if 
we  can  get  at  it  in  the  way  I  have  outlined. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  would  be  entirely  ready  to  agree 
to  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  but  I 
think  the  point  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr. 
Hamblett,  is  a  good  one.  We  have  not  proceeded  far  enough, 
yet;  we  have  not  had,  as  yet,  such  an  exchange  of  views  that 
members  would  feel  qualified  to  express  themselves  by  voting 
upon  these  different  propositions.  It  seems  to  me  that  it 
will  appear  to  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  on 
reconsideration,  that  this  discussion  better  proceed  as  it  is 
proceeding,  taking  these  propositions  together  and  then,  at 
a  later  stage,  his  plan  might  simplify  the  work  and  be  entirely 
proper. 

The  Chairman — The  question  before  the  committee  is  on 
the  motion  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fel- 
lows, to  amend  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  by  striking  out  the  word  "  three  "  and 
inserting  the  word  "two."  Are  you  ready  for  the  question? 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  did  not  intend  to  speak  upon 
this  question  this  morning,  and  should  not,  but  for  the  in- 
quiry of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford.  The 
gentleman  from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows,  presents  to  this  com- 
mittee a  motion  which  calls  for  a  vote,  and  if  the  committee 
votes  upon  that  question  now,  it  commits  itself  one  way  or 
the  other.  It  either  rejects  the  idea  of  reducing  the  house 
of  representatives  to  200,  or  adopts  it,  and,  in  view  of  the 
fact  that  there  has  been  no  discussion  of  the  question,  whether 
the  house  of  representatives  should  be  reduced,  and  if  so, 
how  much,  I  agree  entirely  with  the  suggestion  of  others  that 
that  question  ought  not  to  be  passed  upon  now. 

I  had  supposed,  until  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr. 
Barton,  addressed  the  committee,  that  the  proposition  to 
reduce  the  house  came  to  this  Convention  sua  sponte,  and 
that  it  was  undisputed  among  the  people  that  the  house  of 


132     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

representatives  should  be  reduced  somewhat,  and  the  senate 
increased. 

Now,  coming  from  a  country  town,  I  am  not  prepared,  at 
tnis  time,  to  take  a  position  upon  the  question  as  to  whether 
we  should  depart  from  the  town  system.  Being  a  native  of 
one  of  the  smallest,  but  of  course,  the  most  important  town 
111  me  state  [Laughter],  and  by  adoption,  representing,  in 
part,  one  of  the  larger  towns,  I  naturally  incline  to  the  idea 
of  the  town  system,  if  it  can  be  perfected,  and  equality  of 
representation  can  be  maintained  upon  a  permanent  basis. 
Therefore,  any  proposition  to  change  from  the  town  system 
would  naturally  involve  a  reluctance  on  the  part  of  a  country 
member  to  proceed  rapidly  and  without  discussion. 

I  do  not  quite  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Nelson,  Mr. 
Osgood,  when  he  discusses  at  this  early  stage  the  question 
whether  the  greater  measure  of  virtue  resides  in  the  country 
or  in  the  city.  We  better  avoid  the  discussion  of  such  a 
question.  I- do  agree  with  him,  however,  to  this  extent;  that 
any  proposition,  in  order  to  address  itself  favorably  to  this 
committee,  or  to  this  Convention,  should  spread  itself  fairly 
over  country  and  city  alike.  Any  proposition  that  aims  at 
all  in  the  direction  of  advantage  to  the  country  or  to  the  city 
is  bound  to  fail.  There  should  be  no  disposition — at  least  I 
have  none — to  approach  this  question  with  the  idea  of  giving 
an  advantage  to  either.  This  question  should  be  approached 
with  the  idea  of  reducing  the  house  of  representatives  on  lines 
which  shall  rest  the  withering  frost  of  diminution  upon  city 
and  country  alike.  If  we  approach  the  question  in  any 
other  spirit,  whatever  we  do,  will  fail. 

I  am  bound,  of  course,  having  taken  the  floor  for  that  pur- 
pose, to  answer  the  question  which  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Lyford,  puts  to  me,  as  to  the  practical  working  of 
the  district  system  in  Massachusetts,  which  is  the  system  upon 
which  the  plan  that  gentleman  has  submitted  to  the  Conven- 
tion is  constructed.  I  know  very  little  about  it,  except  that 
I  have  inquired  among  the  lawyers  and  judges  in  Boston,  and 
the  answer  has  always  been,  that  it  worked  smoothly,  and 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  133 

that  everybody  is  satisfied  with  it.  The  great  argument  in 
favor  of  it  is,  that  the  district  lines,  having  been  established, 
become  stable,  and  that  all  parts  of  the  state  are  represented 
all  of  the  time.  Now,  if  there  is  a  vital  defect  in  the  town 
system,  it  seems  to  me  that  it  resides  in  the  fact  that  quite  a 
portion  of  our  state  is  unrepresented  a  substantial  part  of  the 
time.  I  do  not  know  how  large  a  portion,  but  a  considerable 
part  of  the  state.  Perhaps  the  gentleman  from  Concord  can 
inform  us  about  that.  I  know  there  are  several  towns  in  the 
state  that  are  represented  only  a  part  of  the  time.  This  is 
wrong.  It  ought  not  to  be  so. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  will  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  in  an- 
swer to  the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  that  three  towns  in 
the  state  have  less  than  100  population;  five  towns,  between 
100  and  200;  fourteen  towns,  between  200  and  300;  seventeen 
towns,  between  300  and  400.  So  that  there  are  thirty-nine 
towns  in  the  state  having  a  population  of  less  than  400  inhab- 
itants. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — What  is  the  practical  result? 
How  much  of  the  time  are  these  towns  unrepresented? 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — Some  of  them  are  represented  a 
fifth  of  the  time;  the  towns  of  100  inhabitants,  or  less,  are 
represented  a  fifth  of  the  time. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — Is  there  a  possibility  that  the 
town  system  can  be  worked  out  so  that  all  the  towns  can  be 
represented  all  the  time? 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  think  not;  I  have  not  been  able 
to  do  it. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — It  must  be  admitted,  if  we  are 
fair,  that  any  system  which  leaves  any  town  or  any  place  un- 
represented for  any  substantial  portion  of  the  time,  is  defec- 
tive and  radically  wrong,  but  as  I  have  said,  I  am  not  now 


134    JOUKNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

prepared  to  take  any  position  upon  the  question  whether  there 
should  be  a  departure  from  the  town  system  and  the  adoption 
of  something  different.  I  may  be  prepared  later  on  to  do  so. 

I  do  wish,,  however,  at  this  time,  to  submit  to  this  Conven- 
tion some  statistics  which  bear  upon  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Tilton,  and  upon  the  question  whether  the 
house  should  be  reduced,  and  if  so,  whether  to  200  or  300. 
The  statistics  I  am  about  to  submit  are  familiar  to  many  of 
you,  but  I  desire  to  make  some  brief  observations  upon  the 
general  question  involved,  namely,  the  reduction  of  the  house 
and  the  increase  of  the  senate. 

My  first  remark  is,  that  aside  from  the  house  of  commons, 
in  England,  and  the  chamber  of  deputies,  in  France,  the 
house  of  representatives,  in  New  Hampshire,  is  the  largest 
legislative  body  in  the  world.  Another  observation  is,  that, 
with  one  or  two  exceptions,  the  senate  of  New  Hampshire  is 
the  smallest  senate  in  the  world.  The  general  plan,  as  you 
will  see — the  general  scheme,  speaking  generally, — is  that  a 
senate  shall  be  about  one  third  of  the  size  of  the  other  repre- 
sentative body — from  a  quarter  to  a  third.  You  will  find 
that  rule  will  apply  pretty  generally  throughout  the  world. 

Here,  the  house  of  representatives  is  sixteen  times  as  large 
as  the  senate,  the  disproportion  being  so  great  that  it  is 
almost  a  curiosity.  There  is  nothing  like  it  anywhere  else. 

The  present  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  contains  397 
members,  and  we  have  a  senate  of  24. 

The  house  of  representatives  in  Maine  is  151;  our  house  of 
representatives  exceeding  that  of  Maine  by  246.  Maine  has 
a  senate  of  thirty-one;  seven  larger  than  ours. 

In  Vermont,  the  house  of  representatives  is  245,  the  New 
Hampshire  house  being  152  in  excess  of  that  of  Vermont. 
In  that  state  the  senate  is  composed  of  thirty  members;  six 
larger  than  ours. 

The  house  of  representatives  in  Massachusetts  is  239,  ours 
being  158  in  excess.  Their  senate  is  forty,  being  sixteen 
larger  than  the  senate  here. 

The  house  in  Rhode  Island  is  composed  of  seventy-two 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  135 

members,  ours  being  325  in  excess;  and  I  believe  the  popu- 
lation of  Ehode  Island  is  larger  than  that  of  New  Hampshire. 
Ehode  Island  has  a  senate  of  forty-five,  twenty-one  larger 
than  ours. 

Connecticut  has  a  house  of  representatives  of  255,  having 
142  less  than  the  house  of  representatives  of  New  Hampshire. 
The  senate  of  Connecticut  is  twenty-four,  the  same  as  Few 
Hampshire. 

The  great  state  of  Pennsylvania  has  a  senate  of  forty-nine 
and  a  house  of  205,  the  house  of  representatives  in  New 
Hampshire  being  192  in  excess  of  the  great  state  of  Pennsyl- 
vania, and  our  senate  twenty-five  less  than  theirs. 

Indiana  has  a  senate  of  fifty  and  a  house  of  100,  the  house 
being  297  less  than  the  house  here,  and  the  senate  twenty-six 
more  than  ours. 

Illinois  has  a  house  of  153,  244  less  than  the  house  here. 
The  Illinois  senate  consists  of  fifty-one  members,  twenty-seven 
more  than  ours. 

Iowa  has  a  senate  of  fifty  and  a  house  of  100. 

Wisconsin  has  a  senate  of  thirty-three  and  a  house  of  100. 

The  great  state  of  Ohio  has  a  senate  of  thirty-three  and  a 
house  of  110. 

I  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  relative  proportion,  as  I 
give  these  statistics  between  the  senate  and  the  house,  should 
be  observed,  to  see  what  the  idea  outside  of  New  Hampshire 
is  as  to  what  would  be  the  proper  balance  between  the  two. 

The  great  state  of  New  York  has  a  senate  of  fifty  and  an 
assembly  of  150. 

Texas  has  a  senate  of  thirty-one  and  a  house  of  128. 

Kentucky  has  a  senate  of  thirty-eight  and  a  house  of  100. 

Michigan  has  a  senate  of  thirty-one  and  a  house  of  100. 

Our  present  congress  consists  of  357  members. 

The  only  elective  body  in  the  world  equal  in  size  to  that 
of  the  house  of  representatives  of  New  Hampshire  is  the 
German  reichstag.  In  Germany,  where  there  is  a  popu- 
lation of  45,000,000  people,  the  reichstag  has  the  precise 
number  of  members  as  the  house  of  representatives  of  New 


136     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Hampshire,  or  397.  Of  course,  when  I  make  that  general 
remark,  the  house  of  commons  in  England  I  except,  and  the 
chamber  of  deputies  in  France,  where,  on  paper,  the  mem- 
bership is  larger,  but  the  actual  sittings  of  members  are 
much  smaller.  Not  much  more  than  one  half  the  size  of 
this  house. 

In  the  new  Western  states,  speaking  generally,  aside  from 
those  I  have  given,  the  rule  is  a  senate  of  fifty  and  a  house 
of  100. 

Whatever  I  have  said  this  morning  does  not  relate  to  the 
question  as  to  whether  it  should  be  the  town  plan  or  the  dis- 
trict system,  but  relates  to  the  general  question  whether  the 
senate  should  be  increased  and  the  house  reduced,  and  it  must 
be  observed  that  if  the  house  is  only  reduced  to  300  members, 
it  will  still  remain  more  than  twenty  per  cent,  larger  than 
any  other  house  of  representatives  in  the  United  States.  I 
do  not  say  that  it  should  be  less  or  more  than  300,  but  the 
fact  exists  that  if  it  is  only  reduced  to  300,  it  still  remains 
the  largest  in  the  country. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Mr.  Chairman,  if  the  Conven- 
ton  is  to  make  progress,  of  course  the  members  must  ex- 
press their  views  upon  the  propositions,  as  they  are  presented. 

I  am  not  willing  to  vote  for  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows,  that  the  house  of  representatives 
be  reduced  to  200.  I  know  that  a  reduction  ought  to  be- 
made,  but  I  do  not  think  it  ought  to  go  below  300.  I  am 
not  in  favor  of  small  legislatures;  I  am  not  in  favor  of  legis- 
latures so  small  as  those  which  have  been  adopted  in  the 
Western  states,  as  the  gentleman  from  Littleton  has  shown 
you.  I  remember  the  enlargement  of  the  present  hall  of 
representatives.  As  in  time  the  house  increased,  the  size  of 
this  hall  was  enlarged,  and  it  now  has  about  400  seats  here. 
It  is  too  large  a  body,  I  think,  for  so  small  a  state,  and  if  it 
were  reduced  to  300,  the  members  would  sit  in  this  present 
room  without  occupying  the  two  rows  of  rear  seats,  and  it 
would  be  a  body  reasonable  in  size  and  as  always,  except  two 
years  ago,  a  sensible  body. 


THUHSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  137 

Now,  Mr.  President,  really  the  most  important  work  of 
this  Convention  is  to  reduce,  if  possible,  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives. I  know  this  subject  must  be  approached  intelli- 
gently, and  with  harmony,  because  it  is  one  of  some  danger. 
It  will  not  do  for  the  large  towns,  or  their  representatives  in 
this  body,  to  threaten  the  small  towns,  nor  do  I  think  our 
friends  from  the  small  towns  should  allow  themselves  to 
threaten  the  delegates  from  the  large  towns  with  the  rejec- 
tion of  any  proposition  which  this  Convention  may  send  to 
the  people. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  it  is  going  to  be  very  easy 
to  defeat  anything  which  we  may  do.  It  is  the  easiest  thing 
in  the  world  to  defeat  the  work  of  a  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion. I  well  remember  the  Convention  of  1850,  presided 
over  by  a  distinguished  son  of  New  Hampshire,  whose  statue 
I  soon  hope  to  see  in  the  state  house  yard  at  Concord,  and 
who  within  three  years  of  that  time  became  president  of  the 
United  States.  Besides  its  noted  President,  the  Convention 
contained  other  New  Hampshire  men  of  distinction  at  that 
time,  as  of  course  this  Convention  contains  the  most  distin- 
guished men  of  New  Hampshire  now  in  existence!  But,  Mr. 
Chairman,  that  Convention  made  the  mistake  of  submitting 
too  many  amendments.  As  I  scrutinized  them  then,  as  a 
boy,  and  as  I  scrutinize  them  now  as  a  man,  I  think  a  very 
large  proportion  of  them  ought  to  have  been  adopted;  but 
the  people  had  a  notion  that  there  were  too  many  of  them 
and  they  voted  them  down  with  a  rush — the  whole  of  them. 
I  remember  seeing  some  of  the  ballots. 

Voters  would  take  a  brush  or  pen  and  make  a  wide,  black 
border  around  the  whole  ballot  (as  I  sometimes  think  a  bor- 
der ought  to  be  drawn  around  The  Manchester  Union,  especi- 
ally the  edition  of  this  morning)  [The  stenographer  is  not 
certain  that  the  last  remark  is  correct,  as  he  could  not  hear 
distinctly  on  account  of  the  laughter],  and  then  the  voters 
would  write  "  No  "  across  the  face  of  the  ballot  and  put  it  in 
the  box. 

The  Convention,  Mr.  Chairman,  presided  over  by  this  dis- 


138     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

tinguished  gentleman,,  Franklin  Pierce,  and  containing  those 
other  distinguished  gentlemen,  reassembled  and  were  much 
crestfallen.  I  hope  we  shall  not  have  to  reassemble  to  do 
over  again  any  part  of  the  work  that  we  are  now  under- 
taking. That  Convention  of  1850  mustered  courage  enough 
to  again  submit  amendments,  three  in  number,  and  did  suc- 
ceed in  cutting  out  the  property  qualification  for  holding 
office,  but  did  not  succeed  in  taking  out  the  religious  test, 
which  last  was  not  removed  until  1876, — although,  Mr.  Chair- 
man and  gentlemen,  it  was  never  enforced  in  this  state  and 
was  obsolete  years  before  we  succeeded  in  striking  it  out. 

At  this  time,  therefore,  I  cannot  vote  for  any  measure 
which  I  think  will  go  to  the  people  to  be  made  a  wreck  of. 
I  am  not  here  willing  to  participate  in  such  a  work.  Let  us 
see  whether,  by  the  application  of  fairness  and  good  sense  (of 
which  latter  quality  there  is  a  large  amount  in  this  Conven- 
tion), we  can  come  to  some  just  and  equitable  solution  of  the 
problem. 

I  think  there  ought  to  be  a  reduction  of  the  house  to  300, 
but  not  to  200. 

I  cannot  vote  for  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  which  makes  a  reduction  in  the  house 
only  by  increasing  the  number  of  inhabitants  necessary  for 
the  second,  third,  and  fourth  representatives — two  thousand 
additional  inhabitants  instead  of  1,200  to  get  the  second, 
third,  and  fourth  representatives  (which  is  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Newport),  will  reduce  the  house  to 
about  300  members,  by  making  the  reduction  at  the  expense 
wholly  of  the  larger  towns  and  cities,  the  basis  of  600  for  the 
first  representative  remaining  the  same  as  now.  I  say  that 
I  cannot  vote  to  reduce  the  house  to  300,  and  put  the  reduc- 
tion wholly  upon  the  larger  towns.  I  believe,  Mr.  Chairman, 
that  at  some  time  we  will  come  to  the  district  system  in  New 
Hampshire.  We  shall  have  to  come  to  it  at  some  time,  but 
I  am  not  anxious  or  determined  that  we  shall  come  to  it 
immediately. 

Knowing  that  this  was  a  difficult  subject,  I  voted  against 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  139 

the  calling  of  the  Convention  at  the  present  time,  of  course 
not  expecting,,  if  there  were  a  Convention,  I  should  have  the 
honor  of  being  a  member  of  it,  and  sitting  in  such  an  intel- 
ligent body  as  I  see  before  me.  But  I  did  not  think  that  we 
could  grapple  with  this  question  at  this  time,  and  solve  it, 
and  get  an  amendment  which  the  people  would  adopt. 

Believing  that  sometime  we  are  coming  to  the  district  sys- 
tem, the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  has  with 
great  care  prepared  an  amendment,  based  upon  the  Massa- 
chusetts plan,  which  reduces  the  house  to  300;  and  the  300 
representatives  are  apportioned  among  the  counties  of  the 
state;  and  the  county  commissioners,  who  are  elected  by  the 
people,  are  authorized  to  equitably  divide  their  counties  into 
the  necessary  voting  districts.  I  am  in  favor  of  that  plan, 
and  I  would  be  willing  to  see  it  adopted  by  this  Convention, 
and  go  to  the  people.  I  think  that  it  is  a  fair  and  equitable 
plan,  which  places  the  loss  of  representation  alike  upon  the 
small  towns  and  the  large  ones. 

On  the  other  hand,  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Bar- 
ton, presents  to  us  the  proposition  that  100  members  should 
be  stricken  out  from  the  house  of  representatives,  wholly  at 
the  expense  of  the  large  towns,  and  that  the  600  basis  for  the 
one  representative  shall  remain  as  it  was  before.  I  do  not 
think  that  an  amendment  of  this  kind,  if  carried  through  this 
Convention,  will  be  adopted  by  the  people,  and  so  here  we 
are,  Mr.  Chairman,  with  a  very  delicate  question  confronting 
us. 

I  ask  my  friend,  the  gentleman  from  Nelson,  Mr.  Osgood, 
whether  he  is  willing,  to  make  any  concession;  whether  the 
sentiment  of  the  smaller  towns  of  the  state  will  favor  any 
concessions  in  this  matter.  Knowing  how  intelligent  his 
constituents  are,  and  knowing  their  sentiments  in  regard  to 
this  question,  is  he  willing  to  propose,  if  the  town  system  is 
maintained,  any  increase  of  the  basis  of  representation  for 
the  first  member  over  600? 

Mr.  Osgood  of  Nelson — Make  700  the  basis,  instead  of  600. 


140     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — That  is  too  small  a  concession, 
in  comparison  with  the  increase  of  inhabitants  necessary  for 
the  second  representative — an  increase  from  1,200  to  2,000. 
Would  my  friend  favor  an  increase  of  200  or  300  for  the  basis 
of  the  first  representative,  if  the  basis  for  the  other  repre- 
sentatives was  increased  to  1,800? 

You  all  see  the  difficulty  there  is  in  this  question.  If  the 
gentlemen  here  from  the  small  towns  are  willing  to  make  an} 
concessions,  in  order  that  we  may  send  out  something  to  the 
people  which  stands  a  chance  of  being  adopted,  and  which 
preserves  the  town  system,  I  hope  they  will  fairly  and  hon- 
estly tell  us  just  what  they  will  do,  and  I,  for  one,  will  be 
willing  to  meet  the  question  in  a  spirit  of  compromise,  be- 
cause it  must  be  met  in  a  spirit  of  compromise  to  get  any 
results.  That  spirit  must  be  manifested  on  the  part  of  every 
member,  or  else  any  action  we  take  upon  this  matter  will 
prove  abortive. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Baker,  the  committee  arose  to  report  to 
the  Convention  that  it  had  come  to  no  conclusion  on  the 
•subject  under  consideration,  and  to  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

In   Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Cross,  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  re- 
ported that  the  committee  had  been  in  session,  made  pro- 
gress, and  asked  leave  to  sit  again. 

No  objection  being  made,  leave  was  granted. 

The  Convention  then  adjourned. 

AFTERNOON. 

The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Knight  of  Milford,  the  following  reso- 
lution was  adopted: 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  141 

Resolved,  That  a  Committee  on  Mileage  be  appointed  by 
the  chair,  consisting  of  one  member  from  each  county. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  McAllister  of  Manchester,  the  following 
resolution  was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  the  tables  of  statistics,  relative  to  the  mem- 
bership of  the  senate  and  house  of  representatives,  prepared 
by  Judge  Aldrich  of  Littleton,  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  and 
by  other  delegates,  be  printed. 

The  chair  appointed  the  following  tellers,  to  act  during 
the  remainder  of  the  Convention : 

Division  one,  Howe  of  Concord;  division  two,  Evans  of 
North  Hampton;  division  three,  Little  of  Manchester;  division 
four,  Corey  of  Portsmouth;  division  five,  Abbott  of  Derry. 

Mr.  Holman  of  Hillsborough  moved  that  the  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Constitution,  offered  by  him  relating  to  a 
tax  on  inheritance,  be  taken  from  the  table  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department. 

Mr.  Holman  yielded  the  floor  to  Mr.  Lord  of  Manchester, 
who  submitted  the  following  resolution,  which  was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  be  appointed  by  the 
President  to  make  assignment  of  rooms  to  the  various  stand- 
ing committees  of  the  Convention. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Holman  of  Hillsborough  was  then 
renewed,  stated  by  the  President,  and  prevailed. 

The  resolution  offered  at  the  afternoon  session,  December 
3,  by  Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord,  to  amend  article  ninety-eight, 
part  two  of  the  Constitution,  was,  upon  motion  of  Mr.  Lam- 
prey, taken  from  the  table  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  Other  Pro- 
posed Amendments. 

The  same  gentleman  called  for  a  division  upon  the  ques- 


142     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

tion,  which  was  upon  his  motion  that  the  resolution  last 
referred  to  be  taken  from  the  table  and  referred.  The  chair 
ruled  the  call  for  a  division  to  be  out  of  order,  as  coming  too 
late.  Mr.  Lamprey  then  moved  to  reconsider  the  vote  where- 
by the  resolution  was  taken  from  the  table  and  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Consti- 
tution and  Other  Proposed  Amendments.  The  question 
being  stated,  the  affirmative  prevailed.  The  question  recur- 
ring upon  the  original  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Lamprey  withdrew  the  motion  by  unanimous  con- 
sent, and  moved  that  the  resolution  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  and  the  motion  prevailed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  the  resolution  in  relation 
to  establishing  voting  precincts  in  large  towns  and  cities,  was 
taken  from  the  table  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  relating 
to  the  election  of  officers  by  plurality  vote,  was  taken  from 
the  table  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative 
Department. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  committee  to  select 
rooms  for  the  standing  committees:  Messrs.  Lord  of  Man- 
chester, Flanders  of  Holderness,  Pike  of  Stark,  Wilkins  of 
Henniker,  and  Nutter  of  Rollinsford. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster,  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  consider  the 
various  resolutions  relating  to  representation. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of 
the  committee,  I  am  desirous  of  saying  something  at  this* 
time  on. this  subject.  I  do  not  expect  to  enlighten  any  one 
by  my  remarks — I  desire  enlightenment  myself.  My  posi- 
tion upon  the  question  of  representation  is  not  fixed  and 
determined.  I  do  not  know  thoroughly  what  may  be  best, 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  143 

but  I  am  very  sure  no  result  can  be  reached  except  by  mutual 
concession  by  the  different  interests  after  a  careful  and 
thoughtful  consideration  of  all  the  questions  presented  here. 

I  was  impressed  with  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  this  morning  with  reference  to 
taking  such  action  as  shall  be  endorsed  by  the  people  when 
the  question  is  submitted  to  them.  I  realize  that  we  may 
not  properly  be  bound  by  a  fear  of  what  may  happen,  but 
that  we  must  do  as  nearly  right  as  we  know  how  to  do  right 
and  trust  that  the  results  will  be  good.  At  the  same  time 
this  is  not  a  moral  question,  but  one  more  of  policy  and 
expediency,  and  we  should  to  some  extent,  at  least,  consider 
what  the  people  will  approve. 

A  motion  is  before  this  committee  that  the  number  of 
the  members  of  the  house  should  be  reduced  to  200,  but  I 
do  not  think  that  we  are,  at  this  point  of  the  discussion,  far 
enough  advanced  to  fix  the  permanent  bounds  of  our  action, 
but  think  we  should  go  further  before  doing  so.  It  is  of 
course  true  that  in  order  to  accomplish  all  that  we  were  sent 
here  for,  we  should  reduce  the  house  and  reduce  it  materially, 
but  until  we  have  discussed  this  further  we  should,  as  it 
seems  to  me,  leave  our  minds  open,  both  with  reference  to 
the  size  of  the  house  and  the  basis  of  representation. 

We  come  here,  not  with  any  pride  of  opinion  or  desire  to 
introduce  anything  new  into  this  fundamental  instrument 
of  our  government,  but  simply,  as  delegates  of  the  people 
of  the  state,  to  consider  a  delicate  situation  and  to  find  a 
way  of  relief  from  the  conditions  which  now  exist  and  which 
seem  to  some  extent  burdensome,  and  we  should  seek  to  do 
this  in  all  candor  and  with  minds  liberal  enough  to  entertain 
and  consider  fairly  all  the  resolutions  that  have  been  and 
may  be  presented  to  this  Convention.  So  you  must  count 
me  as  an  opponent  of  anything  which  at  this  time  tends  to 
draw  the  lines  between  conflicting  systems  of  representation. 
The  invitation  to  those  favoring  the  town  system  to  meet 
after  adjournment  this  afternoon  is  to  my  mind  unfortunate. 

I  may  at  this  time,  I  think,  properly  say  that  all  the  asso- 


144    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ciations,  education,  and  training  of  my  early  life  induce  me 
to  favor  the  existing  town  system  of  representation.  It  is- 
my  desire  and  hope,  if  it  is  possible,  to  adopt  an  amendment 
that  will  fairly  retain  it,  but  I  do  not  know  of  any  particular 
method  that  can  accomplish  the  desired  result,  if  it  can  be 
accomplished.  I  hope,  however,  that  during  this  discussion 
of  various  proposed  amendments  I  may  be  able  to  arrive  in 
my  mind  at  some  conclusion  as  to  which  is  the  best  measure 
to  adopt,  whether  that  be  one  retaining  the  town  system  or 
one  setting  up  the  district  system. 

I  have  listened  with  regard  to  the  explanations  and  state- 
ments of  my  lifelong  friend  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  and 
to  those  of  other  gentlemen  of  this  Convention,  and  when 
the  time  comes  I  hope  we  shall  be  able  to  make  a  right 
solution  of  this  matter.  I  wish  to  say  here,  as  I  have  said 
before,  that  in  my  judgment  any  drawing  of  lines  at  this 
time  between  those  in  favor  of  the  town  system  and  those  in 
favor  of  the  district  system  is  not  wise  and  that  I  should  not 
be  able  to  take  part  in  such  a  conference,  because  I  think  the 
minds  of  the  Convention  ought  to  be  left  free  until  we  come 
to  some  conclusion. 

I  am  not  at  this  time  an  advocate  of  any  measure  in  regard 
to  the  method  of  representation.  I  have  listened  with  the 
rest  of  you  to  these  different  suggestions.  It  is  a  matter 
that  is  not  free  from  sentiment,  and  I  am  bound  to  say  that 
sentiment  counts  more  in  the  affairs  of  the  world  than  force. 

I  believe  in  a  creed — the  creed  of  numbers — that  all  the 
people  should  endeavor  to  join  in  measures  for  the  common 
good  of  the  greatest  number — in  this  instance  for  the  weal 
of  the  commonwealth. 

I  have  been  in  favor  of  the  town  system,  but  I  desire  to 
hear  what  may  further  be  said  about  it.  I  am  willing  to 
listen  to  all  the  suggestions  in  regard  to  different  systems 
and  hope  that  before  we  arrive  at  the  conclusion  of  this 
discussion  I  shall  be  so  clear  in  my  mind  with  reference  to 
this  that  I  shall  have  no  further  hesitancy  as  to  the  proper 
action  to  take,  and  if  I  can  contribute  anything  to  that  end 
I  shall  only  be  too  happy  to  do  so. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  145 

In  the  first  place,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  town  system  is 
more  in  accord  with  the  genius  of  the  people  of  New  Hamp- 
shire than  the  district  system.  It  has  been  said  here  that 
it  is  only  a  question  of  time  before  we  shall  be  compelled  to 
adopt  the  district  system.  Perhaps  it  is — possibly  it  is  so, 
but  I  do  not  believe  we  should  adopt  that  system  before  we 
are  obliged  to.  I  know  that  conditions  change.  I  hope  the 
prosperity  of  New  Hampshire  will  continue,  but  it  is  possible 
that  our  population  will  not  increase  or  even  that  it  may 
decline  and  the  representation  thus  fall  off,  so  that  no  such 
change  as  is  suggested  by  the  advocates  of  the  district  system 
will  become  necessary.  It  has  seemed  to  me  that  it  was 
better  to  maintain,  so  long  as  we  could  with  fairness  and 
justice,  the  old  system,  which  not  only  New  Hampshire  but 
the  federal  government,  in  its  inception,  represented. 

It  seems  to  me  that  while  the  functions  of  town  govern- 
ment are  carried  on  independently  of  the  state  government 
and  while  they  retain  their  identity  as  towns  or  little  repub- 
lics, as  they  have  been  called,  the  same  independence  should 
be  given  them  or  rather  left  with  them  for  the  purpose  of 
electing  representatives  to  the  law-making  body.  It  seems 
to  me  it  fosters  a  spirit  of  independence,  and  freedom,  and 
strength,  and  that  it  is  better  for  each  town  to  independently 
elect  a  representative  than  to  be  one  of  many  necessary 
to  do  so. 

I  may  be  wholly  wrong  in  this.  It  may  be  that  this  thing 
cannot  be  carried  out  in  its  entirety,  as  it  ought  to  be.  I 
am  told  that  as  we  go  on  in  this  way  the  more  the  inequali- 
ties grow,  on  account  of  the  larger  surplus  numbers.  Possi- 
bly that  may  be  so.  But  I  do  not  know  that  there  is  any 
remedy  for  these  inequalities,  even  though  you  take  the 
state  and  carve  it  up  into  districts.  I  have  yet  to  discover 
any  method  by  which  absolute  equality  can  be  obtained — it 
is  only  approximation  to  equality  that  we  can  hope  to  gain. 
And  this  is  so  practically  with  all  public  measures.  For 
instance,  take  the  taxes.  They  are  never  assessed  throughout 
the  state  with  perfect  equality.  All  we  can  do  in  the 
10 


146    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

transactions  of  the  state  is  to  approach  as  nearly  as  we  can 
to  equality — to  get  it  approximately,  to  endeavor  to  do  as 
well  as  we  can  do  in  that  direction. 

I  am  not  prepared  to  enter  into  an  argument  here  as  to 
the  relative  merits  of  the  people  in  the  different  parts  of 
the  state  or  to  assert  that  one  section  of  the  state  is  better, 
physically,  morally,  or  spiritually,  than  another  section, 
neither  should  I  be  able  to  discuss  the  matter  through  all 
its  details  and  ramifications.  But  I  think  I  may  say  this 
to  you,  sons  of  New  Hampshire,  delegates  of  our  constituents, 
whether  of  city  or  country,  you  all,  either  in  yourselves  or 
forebears,  retain  a  kindly  feeling  toward  the  country.  I 
believe  the  country  to  be  the  nursery  of  the  cities.  I  think 
the  cities  are  largely  recruited  from  the  towns.  I  think 
many  of  the  prosperous  men  in  the  cities  look  back  to  the 
old  homestead  on  the  hillside  and  to  those  left  behind  when 
they  went  out  to  fight  the.  battle  of  life.  I  do  not  regard 
this  as  sentiment  but  as  one  of  the  phases  of  human  nature, 
one  of  the  qualities  that  will  endure.  I  think  to  a  large 
degree  character  that  has  developed  on  the  hillsides  of  the 
state  has  to-day  the  same  result  as  in  the  generations  gone. 
Hence  I  believe  that  our  friends  who  reside  in  the  cities 
do  have  and  will  continue  to  have,  through  whatever  changes, 
kindly  feeling  toward  the  country-side  from  whence  they  or 
their  fathers  and  mothers  came. 

I  further  believe, — and  I  do  not  think  it  is  my  individual 
belief,  but  the  common  belief  of  the  people, — I  believe  it 
is  the  policy  of  a  republican  form  of  government — and  I  do 
not  use  the  word  republican  in  a  partisan  sense  at  all — to 
increase  and  strengthen  the  power  and  influence  of  its  agri- 
cultural and  rural  communities.  '  I  believe  that  to  be  some- 
thing more  than  mere  dollars  and  cents  and  more  than  the 
mere  question  of  the  relative  number  city  and  town  should 
have  in  the  legislature.  I  believe  it  to  be  a  broad  policy  that 
has  grown  up  from  the  very  nature  and  essence  of  country 
character  and  has  remained  inviolate  through  all  the  changes 
of  the  years.  While  I  do  not  think  this  is  in  any  way 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  147 

mandatory  or  controlling,  I  do  think  this  idea  of  the  relative 
position  of  country  and  city  in  the  history  of  the  nation  is 
to  he  taken  into  account. 

The  word  "  city  "  is  an  indefinite  term.  There  are  cities 
and  cities.  What  is  a  city  in  one  state  would  he  termed 
country  in  another.  In  the  state  of  Kansas,  for  instance, 
every  gathering  where  there  are  two  thousand  people  is  a 
city  and  has  his  honor,  the  mayor,  and  a  city  council  equally 
with  New  York,  but  how  different.  Now  to  my  mind  the 
larger  towns  and  the  smaller  cities  are  identical;  they  are 
really  the  same.  When  we  come  to  put  a  distinctive  meaning 
to  the  word  "  city  "  outside  of  its  form  of  government,  we 
would  not  he  able  to  count  more  than  half  a  dozen  in  the 
state  at  the  outside.  The  other  cities  are  practically  large 
rural  communities  spread  out  over  more  territory  than  other 
country  communities,  and  which  for  convenience'  sake  have 
a  government  called  a  city  government,  but  to  all  intents 
and  purposes  they  are  the  same  as  the  other  country  towns 
and  bear  the  imprint  of  country  towns  all  through. 

I  have  listened  also  with  great  intentness  to  the  clear  and 
lucid  explanation  of  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr. 
Barton,  as  to  his  plan.  I  do  not  think  any  one  who  has 
presented  a  plan  is  wholly  right  and  in  accord  with  the 
sentiment  of  this  Convention,  and  undoubtedly  whatever 
plan  is  presented  will,  before  it  is  adopted,  have  to  be 
changed. 

I  understand  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler, 
to  say,  that  from  his  recollection  of  the  details  of  the  plan 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  it  took  all  the 
decrease  from  the  cities  and  left  the  rural  communities 
intact.  I  think  that  is  a  mistake.  I  know  that  my  own 
town  of  Lancaster,  having  something  over  3,000  inhabitants, 
now  has  three  members;  under  the  plan  presented  by  Mr. 
Barton,  it  will  lose  one  representative.  I  think  that  that 
plan  would  take  from  the  large  towns  and  the  cities  that 
are  large  towns  rather  than  from  the  larger  cities.  It  seems 
to  me  that  in  cities  the  wards  are  so  constructed,  the  lines 


148    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

so  drawn,  that  there  is  no  more  surplus  of  population  in 
those  wards  than  in  the  country  towns. 

I  know  that  I  am  making  a  rambling  talk,  but  I  do  it 
because  I  want  all  the  information  that  I  can  get  before  I 
come  to  a  conclusion  on  this  matter,  and  I  desire  to  throw 
out  suggestions  which  may  be  discussed  and  thus  have  light 
thrown  upon  the  question,  and  I  must  be  pardoned  for 
saying  some  things  out  of  place  perhaps.  I  do  it  with  this 
intent,  that  all  these  matters  may  come  before  this  body  for 
its  deliberation  and  consideration.  It  is  of  the  very  greatest 
importance  that  whatever  plan  is  adopted  by  this  Convention, 
and  presented,  should  bear  the  stamp  of  earnest  consideration 
and  the  desire  of  all  of  us  without  pride  of  opinion  or  preju- 
dice to  come  together  on  common  ground.  A  great  English 
statesman  once  said  that  "  Compromise  is  the  essence  of 
politics."  I  believe  that  to  be  thoroughly  true  and  that 
in  all  questions,  except  where  moral  results  are  involved, 
the  middle  course  is  generally  the  safer  and  more  satisfactory. 
I  trust  that  out  of  all  of  these  plans  presented  we  can  get 
together  upon  one  that  will  be  satisfactory  and  just.  It  is 
of  the  greatest  importance  that  whatever  plan  goes  out  from 
this  body  to  the  people  of  the  state  should  be  received  with 
entire  confidence,  the  feeling  that  we  have  tried  to  do  what 
is  best  and  that  no  one  is  getting  advantage,  unless  it  is  the 
advantage  authorized  by  omnipotence — the  advantage  of  con- 
ditions and  environments. 

Now  if  any  plan  was  sent  out  which  by  any  means  was 
so  shaped  that  bad  results  would  follow  to  any  political  or 
ecclesiastical  organization  or  to  any  business  or  other  legiti- 
mate interest,  it  would  incite  suspicion  and  greatly  imperil 
the  success  of  that  plan.  While  I  regard  the  system,  if  we 
are  to  have  a  district  system,  presented  by  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  as  very  admirable  and  complete 
in  its  details,  I  think  it  has  some  points  connected  with  it 
that  are  objectionable.  The  state  is  to  be  laid  upon  a  bed 
and  carved  into  300  representative  districts.  First  the  divi- 
sion is  to  be  by  counties  and  then  the  towns  of  those  counties 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  149 

instead  of  maintaining  their  independence  are  to  be  joined 
together  and  divided  into  districts.  Now  how  are  the  dis- 
tricts to  be  determined?  I  have  no  doubt  but  the  idea 
presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  is 
the  result  of  earnest  study  and  deliberation,  and  I  may  be 
mistaken  about  the  result,  but  what  does  it  do?  It  puts  the 
formation  of  this  300  representative  districts  into  the  hands 
of  the  boards  of  county  commissioners.  They  are  the  ones 
who  determine  how  these  districts  are  to  be  composed,  and 
as  these  districts  are  composed,  so  the  representation  is  likely 
to  stand  and  so  the  legislation  of  the  state  is  to  be  conducted 
during  several  sessions,  at  any  rate. 

Now  it  is  wholly  probable  and  possible  that  the  condition 
of  parties  now  existing  in  this  state  may  change;  it  is  entirely 
possible  that  such  a  condition  might  exist  with  reference 
to  the  election  of  representatives  to  the  legislature,  that 
practically  the  entire  power  of  the  state  would  lie  to-day 
with  this  party  and  to-morrow  with  that  party.  We  are  not 
talking  politics  here  and  politics  should  not  enter  into  this 
discussion,  but  there  is  always  a  suspicion  that  partisan 
boards  throughout  the  state  might  take  partisan  advantages  in 
determining  the  lines  of  the  districts  which  are  to  send  repre- 
sentatives under  the  system  proposed.  My  apprehension  is 
that  anything  in  an  amendment  submitted  to  the  people, 
which  would  tend  to  such  a  result  would  not  be  ratified. 
Now  it  is  more  than  likely  that  the  trained  brain  of  the 
gentleman  from  Concord  and  the  interest  he  has  taken  in 
this  matter,  will  enable  him  to  make  some  other  proposition 
to  take  the  place  of  the  present  plan  if  it  is  open  to  this 
objection  of  possible  partisan  advantage. 

There  may  be  other  things  to  come  up  also  objectionable; 
some  points  are  open  to  criticism,  in  this  as  well  as  in  the 
other  proposed  amendments,  but  I  am  in  hopes  that  the 
result  of  this  discussion  will  be  to  eliminate  objections  and 
bring  about  the  adoption  of  an  amendment  which  will  be 
just  and  fair.  I  have  no  idea  in  my  own  mind  that  the 
discussion  on  these  several  measures  will  be  finished  this 
week. 


150    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

There  is  a  question — in  regard  to  the  change  of  the  mem- 
bership of  the  senate — that  has  been  very  little  discussed. 
Individually,  that  does  not  seem  to  me  a  matter  of  great 
importance  one  way  or  another.  I  do  not  attach  importance 
to  the  fact  that  New  Hampshire  is  unique  in  its  house  of 
representatives;  I  think  it  is  cumbersome  and  more  expensive 
than  necessary,  and  should  be  reduced  in  size,  but  there  are 
other  things  to  be  considered  in  connection  with  a  proposed 
reduction. 

A  prominent  son  of  New  Hampshire  for  many  years  was 
Oilman  Marston.  There  were  a  great  many  points  on  which 
I  did  not  agree  with  Oilman  Marston,  and  on  which  he  did 
not  hesitate  on  occasion  to  disagree  with  me.  The  idea  he 
had  was  that  a  large  body  of  this  sort  was  an  educational 
body  and  the  amount  of  money  expended  in  maintaining  a 
large  house  of  representatives  was  more  than  offset  by  its 
educational  value,  giving  opportunity  for  many  to  learn  by 
experience  how  to  conduct  public  business.  That  is  a  matter 
that  should  be  taken  into  consideration  as  an  element  here. 

It  is  not  necessary  that  we  have  200  members  in  the  house, 
because  Connecticut,  for  instance,  has  that  number  or  that 
we  should  have  any  number  that  the  traditions  of  the  state 
and  the  best  interests  of  our  people  may  demand. 

I  do  not  suppose  that  I  have  in  any  way  made  a  lucid 
speech  or  argument,  because,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
I  do  not  fully  know  what  I  do  want  and  therefore  have  not 
attempted  to  place  any  definite  proposition  before  you,  but 
I  have  tried  to  suggest  ideas  that  may  be  of  value. 

I  hope  the  town  system  may  be  retained  with  justice  to 
all,  but  I  assure  you,  if  in  my  mind  I  come  to  the  conclusion 
that  that  could  not  be,  I  shall  be  perfectly  willing  to  replace 
it  by  such  a  system  as  would  do  justice,  and  I  know  that  is 
practically  the  feeling  of  the  people  all  over  New  Hampshire. 

On  the  other  hand  I  am  sure  that  this  Convention  is  im- 
pressed with  the  idea  that  while  we  may  find  numerous 
things  in  this  venerable  Constitution  that  may  be  improved, 
it  is  not  a  wise  thing  to  depart  from  its  spirit  or  to  try  to 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  151 

make  numerous  amendments.  As  was  so  well  illustrated 
this  morning  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler, 
in  referring  to  the  results  of  the  Constitutional  Convention 
of  1852,  too  many  amendments  are  apt  to  defeat  the  purposes 
of  the  Convention.  Let  us  consider  and  adopt  a  few  amend- 
ments which  are  important  and  essential  and  go  home.  This 
Convention  will  then  have  accomplished  something  worthy 
of  approval. 

My  belief  is  that  the  house  of  representatives  ought  to  be 
reduced.  It  seems  to  me  that  by  discussing  and  considering 
different  plans  to  that  end  we  may  reach  some  basis  and  just 
ratio  between  extremes. 

It  seems  to  me  also  that  population  is  better  than  ratable 
polls  or  voting  strength. 

I  think  we  can  agree  upon  a  plan  without  loss  of  respect 
to  ourselves  and  that  we  should  waive  all  pride  in  our  pre- 
conceived opinions  or  prejudices. 

I  believe  in  retaining  so  far  as  possible  the  independence 
of  these  little  commonwealths,  these  little  republics,  that  are 
the  germs  of  empire,  but  if  we  cannot  retain  them,  I  am 
ready  to  join  in  any  system  to  reduce  the  representation  that 
is  likely  to  promote  justice  and  meet  the  reasonable  expec- 
tations of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
in  the  line  of  the  ideas  expressed  by  the  gentleman  who  has 
just  taken  his  seat,  I  introduced  a  resolution  in  this  Conven- 
tion, which  is  before  you,  for  the  preservation  of  that  old 
town  system,  which  I  believe  in  thoroughly. 

I  was  called  out  for  a  short  time  this  forenoon,  and  when 
I  returned  I  found  a  motion  had  been  made,  upon  which,  I 
supposed,  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  was  acting  at  this 
time, — that  the  number  of  the  house  of  representatives  be 
fixed  at  200.  I  was  a  little  surprised  at  that,  because,  it 
seemed  to  me,  that  the  action  which  the  Convention  had 
previously  taken,  that  all  matters  pertaining  to  the  matter 
of  representation  should  be  considered  in  the  Committee  of 


152    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  Whole,  was  taken  that  the  members  of  the  Convention 
might  thoroughly  consider  these  matters  before  acting  upon 
them.  I  find  the  arguments  made  by  the  speakers  who  have 
preceded  me  have  proceeded  on  the  line  of  discussing  all  of 
the  questions  involved  in  this  matter;  and  with  reference  to 
the  remarks  that  I  make  at  this  time,  I  shall  not  confine  my- 
self simply  to  the  numbers  of  the  house  of  representatives,  and 
more  especially,  gentlemen,  because  I  do  not  remember  that 
there  has  been  a  single  project  presented  to  this  Convention 
by  which  the  house  of  representatives  was  to  be  reduced  to 
the  number  of  200.  That  being  the  case,  if  such  a  motion 
was  made  here,  of  course  it  lays  to  one  side  all  the  resolutions 
that  have  been  introduced  by  the  several  gentlemen,  to  pre- 
serve the  town  system,  and  also  the  district  system.  Conse- 
quently, I  take  it  that  the  chair  has  taken  the  sense  of  this 
Convention,  and  has  not  seen  fit  to  confine  the  discussion 
strictly  to  the  motion  that  the  house  should  be  limited  to  200. 

Another  reason  why  I  speak  of  this  is  because  several  reso- 
lutions were  introduced  this  morning  which  have  not  been 
printed,  and  consequently  the  Convention  has  not  had  an 
opportunity  to  see  them  and  know  what  they  were. 

The  resolution  which  I  introduced  was  based  upon  an  in- 
crease for  the  second  representative  to  3,000.  My  friend 
from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  has  introduced  a  bill,  based  on 
2,000,  as  an  increase  for  the  second  representative.  He  re- 
tains the  old  town  system  and  I  agree  with  that,  if  it  reduces 
the  numbers  of  the  legislature  to  the  required  limits,  and  I 
believe,  from  what  I  have  heard  in  the  different  parts  of  the 
state,  that  that  is  what  the  people  desire — to  reduce  the  house 
and  still  preserve  the  town  system. 

I  have  a  tabulation,  which  is  based  upon  the  present  system 
of  1,200  increase,  and  also  one  on  an  increase  of  2,000,  and 
one  on  an  increase  of  3,000.  I  find  that  the  number  of  the 
legislature,  based  upon  a  2,000  increase,  would  be  271,  ex- 
cluding representatives  from  prorated  towns. 

I  had  supposed  that  it  was  the  desire  of  the  people,  in  view 
of  the  fact,  as  has  been  stated  to  you,  that  our  legislature  is 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  153 

•BO  large,  to  have  it  reduced  somewhat,  but  I  did  not  suppose 
it  would  be  the  desire  of  the  people  to  reduce  it  as  much  as 
has  been  suggested. 

As  you  have  well  known,  some  of  the  states  around  us  have 
,a  house  of  only  150,  some  100,  others  175,  but  none  o,f  them 
so  high  as  the  house  of  representatives  in  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire.  But  I  do  not  think  that  we  ought,  on  that 
account,  to  reduce  our  representation  as  low  as  it  is  in  many, 
if  not  all,  of  those  states.  I  had  supposed  that  the  people 
desired  to  have  the  number  made  smaller  than  it  now  is,  and 
consequently  I  had  fixed  the  number  of  inhabitants  neces- 
sary for  an  increase  of  one  representative  at  3,000.  That 
would  give  us  a  house  of  240,  and  it. seems  to  me  that  is 
sufficient;  that  240  is  all  that  is  required. 

I  take  but  very  little  stock  in  what  has  been  said  in  regard 
to  the  inequality  of  this  thing,  and  the  hardships  it  would 
impose  upon  the  larger  towns  and  cities,  from  the  fact  that 
I  found,  on  tabulating  it,  that  the  reduction  rested  very 
equally  upon,  the  community.  If  anybody  has  to  suffer,  it  is 
a  town  like  mine,  which  falls  a  little  short  of  3,000,  and  which 
now  has  two  representatives,  but  cannot  have  but  one  under 
the  system  proposed  in  my  resolution;  but  on  the  part  of  the 
inhabitants  of  that  town,  in  the  line  of  the  remarks  of  the 
gentleman  who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  such  is  the  feeling  in 
regard  to  the  retention  of  the  old  town  system,  which  gives 
to  the  people  in  the  old  state  of  New  Hampshire  the  right  to 
be  heard  as  of  old  (and  that  goes  a  great  ways),  we  are  en- 
tirely satisfied  to  have  our  representation  reduced  one  half, 
and  all  that  we  require  is,  that  the  cities  stand  equally  with 
us. 

I  have  the  tabulation  which  shows  what  the  result  would 
be  under  this  system,  but  I  am  not  going  to  put  it  in  here  at 
this  time.  If  this  notice  had  not  been  given,  that  there  was 
to  be  a  meeting  following  this  of  all  those  who  were  interested 
in  the  town  system,  I  should  have  more  to  say  now,  but  after 
that  meeting,  and  after  knowing  the  feeling  of  my  fellow- 
delegates  better,  I  may  be  inclined  to  talk  to  you  again,  but 


154    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

at  the  present  time  I  shall  be  very  brief.  I  will,  however, 
simply  give  you  a  few  of  the  results  which  I  have  tabulated. 
This  tabulation  has  been  made  by  as  accurate  a  mathematician 
as  there  is  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  I  do  not  pretend 
to  be  so  very  accurate  in  mathematics  as  some  others,  but 
usually  have  been  able  to  do  my  own  business,  and  some  for 
other  people,  and  they  have  not  complained.  I  have  looked 
over  this  tabulation  and  revised  it. 

The  city  of  Nashua,  which  now  has  twenty  representatives, 
will  have  ten;  the  city  of  Manchester,  which  now  has  forty- 
eight  representatives,  will  have  twenty-three;  and  it  runs  in 
that  proportion  throughout  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  I 
cannot  find — and  I  have  figured  on  it  a  good  deal — any  more 
equitable  basis  upon  which  the  representation  can  be  placed, 
if  you  desire  to  reduce  this  house,  and  furthermore,  if  you 
desire  in  this  Convention  to  do  something  that  will  be  ratified 
by  your  constituents  when  you  get  home. 

I  think  I  am  well  qualified — I  do  not  say  any  better  than 
the  others  here — to  know  the  sentiment  of  the  people.  There 
are  gentlemen  here  as  well  qualified  as  I  am,  but  my  business 
for  forty-five  years  has  been  such  that  I  have  had  occasion 
to  go  around  through  the  rural  communities  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  I  think  I  know  something  about  the  sentiment  of 
those  communities.  Whatever  you  do  here  must  be  simply 
a  recognition  of  that  sentiment,  as  it  has  got  to  go  to  those 
rural  towns  to  be  approved  or  disapproved  by  two-thirds  vote. 
I  take  it  that  we  all  want  to  do  something  to  meet  the  appro- 
bation of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire,  so  that  this  Conven- 
tion shall  not  be  a  farce,  and  I  stand  here  to-day  to  say,  not 
what  is  intended  for  a  threat  but  what  seems  to  be  a  fact, 
knowing  the  sentiment  of  those  towns  as  I  do,  that  there  are 
but  three  systems,  in  my  candid  judgment,  that  have  been 
presented  here,  that  will  meet  the  approbation  of  your  con- 
stituents when  you  get  home,  and  I  will  tell  you  what  those 
are. 

One  is  the  amendment  that  I  had  not  heard  spoken  of  until 
it  was  presented  to  the  Convention,  and  that  is  the  one  that 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  155 

is  included  in  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Newport, 
Mr.  Barton,  based  upon  the  actual  voters. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — That  is,  165  voters  for  the  first 
representative — that  was  introduced  by  Mr.  Woodbury  of 
Woodstock?  * 

Mr.  Scott — It  is  the  one  introduced  by  Mr.  Woodbury.  I 
have  not  looked  up  the  figures  independently,  under  that 
scheme,  but  I  have  his  figures  here,  and  they  vary  very  little 
from  the  results  under  the  resolution  introduced  by  myself. 

If  a  man  wants  to  know  what  representation  his  town  is 
entitled  to,  under  the  present  system,  I  can  give  it;  if  he 
wants  to  know  what  it  would  be  under  an  increase  of  2,000, 
I  can  give  it;  or  of  3,000,  I  can  give  it,  and  I  have  the  tabu- 
lations by  counties  as  well  as  by  towns.  I  will  give  you  the 
figures  representing  the  number  of  representatives  each 
county  would  send  under  an  increase  of  3,000.  And  you  will 
remember  the  tabulation  which  Mr.  Woodbury  gave  you,  un- 
der his  system  of  actual  voters. 

Rockingham  County 34 


Strafford 

Belknap 

Carroll 

Merrimack 

Hillsborough 

Cheshire 

Sullivan 

Grafton 

Coos 


23 
14 
11 
35 
56 
18 
7 

26 
16 


Making  240  under  the  system  of  an  additional  represen- 
tative for  each  3,000  increase  in  the  inhabitants,  and  leaving, 
as  of  course  it  does,  the  old  town  system  precisely  as  it  is  now, 
with  600  for  the  first  representative. 

If  271  is  as  small  as  you  desire  to  have  this  house,  the  sys- 
tem presented  here  by  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr. 
Barton,  which  is  based  upon  a  population  of  600  for  the  first 
representative  and  2.000  for  the  second,  would  seem  to  an- 


156     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

swer  the  purpose.  If  that  is  too  large  a  house,  I  know  of 
no  other  system  by  which  you  can  reduce  it  so  fairly  and  pr?- 
serve  the  rights  of  the  towns  throughout  the  state,  than 
having  3,000  necessary  for  the  second  representative.  It 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  necessary  to  preserve  the  town  system, 
in  order  that  the  amendments  be  accepted  and  the  object  of 
this  Convention  here  accomplished.  I  take  it  there  is  no 
one  here  but  what  wants  what  is  fair  and  right.  I  have  con- 
versed with  the  gentlemen  from  the  cities,  and  some  of  them 
have  said  to  me  that  the  cities  would  suffer  wrongfully  under 
these  tabulations.  But  you  will  note  that  they  will  not  suffer 
more  than  the  towns.  My  own  town  would  have  but  one 
representative,  and  would  lose  one.  Hillsborough  would  lose 
one  representative,  Goffstown  would  lose  one  representative, 
and  many  of  the  towns  in  this  state,  falling  a  little  short  of 
3,000,  would  lose  one  representative.  Can  you  say  that  the 
cities  will  lose  more  in  proportion?  We  are  here  to  reduce 
the  house,  and  there  is  no  other  way  so  just  and  fair  as  this; 
there  is  none  other  that  will  meet  the  wishes  of  the  people  so 
that  when  it  is  submitted  to  the  people  it  will  be  ratified, 
and  your  doings  will  not  come  to  naught. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — Mr.  Chairman,  may  I  ask,  through 
you,  if  there  was  a  resolution  presented  by  some  one  in  regard 
to  this  same  matter,  which  I  think,  pertains  to  the  system  as 
it  prevails  in  Connecticut  and  Vermont — that  is,  one  repre- 
sentative from  each  town  and  ward.  Mr.  Holman  of  Hills- 
borough  is  the  one  which,  I  think,  introduced  it,  and  I  should 
like  to  have  that  plan  explained  to  us  by  the  gentleman  who 
introduced  it. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  do  not  desire  to  address  the  com- 
mittee at  this  time  on  the  general  subject,  but  in  response 
to  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Lancaster,  in  the 
absence  of  the  gentleman  from  Hillsborough,  I  think  I  can 
give  the  statistics  he  desires.  There  are  225  towns,  and  there 
are  eleven  cities,  and  the  eleven  cities  have  sixty-six  wards, 
so  that  would  make  a  house  of  291  members. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  157 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — That  is  Connecticut. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Practically  the  Connecticut  system. 
So,  if  every  town  and  ward  in  the  state  be  represented  by 
one,  we  should  have  a  house  that  consisted  of  291. 

The  Chairman — In  the  absence  of  other  business,  I  will 
request  the  clerk,  for  the  information  of  the  committee,  to 
read  section  two,  article  four  of  the  Constitution  of  the  state 
of  Maine,  which  provides  for  a  house  of  representatives  in 
that  state. 

(The  clerk  reads.) 

The  Chairman — And  also,  unless  there  is  objection,  I  desire- 
the  clerk  to  read  section  five  of  the  Constitution  of  Khode- 
Island. 

(The  clerk  reads.) 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — It  has  seemed  to  me,  during  the 
progress  of  this  discussion  so  far,  that  we  are  not  making  the 
headway  we  should,  if  we  first  determine  whether  this  Con- 
vention desires  to -reduce  the  house  of  representatives,  and  if 
so,  how  much.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  it  would  be  better, 
first,  to  decide  upon  the  number  which  should  constitute  the 
house  of  representatives. 

Now  I  am  in  favor,  personally,  of  a  horizontal  reduction 
to  100.  I  believe  it  would  be  a  business  proposition  to  reach 
that  decision,  so  that  there  could  be  no  doubt  what  the  size  of 
the  house  is  to  be,  whether  the  legislature  need  be  more  than 
fourteen  times  as  large  as  that  of  the  state  of  New  York,  in 
proportion  to  the  population,  or  not.  Will  some  one  rise  and 
tell  me  why  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  needs  fourteen  times 
more  men,  in  proportion  to  its  population,  to  represent  it  in 
its  legislature,  than  the  great  state  of  New  York,  with  a  popu- 
lation of  nearly  six  millions  ?  That  state  has  a  house  of  about 
150,  and  if  we  reduce  our  house  to  150,  we  should  then  have 
fourteen  times  as  large  a  representation  as  New  York  has. 

Now  I  understand  the  tenacity   of  the  people   of   New 


158    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Hampshire  for  the  old  institutions  which  have  come  down  to 
us  from  our  fathers.  I  can  remember  when  there  was  the 
same  tenacity  manifested  in  retaining  the  school  district 
system,  when  each  school  district  was  a  kingdom  by  itself.  I 
remember,  when  a  boy,  of  hearing  the  Hon  Nathaniel  Baker 
use  the  whole  power  of  his  eloquence  to  induce  the  then  No. 
9  district  of  Concord,  N.  H.,  not  to  consolidate  and  make  a 
union  district;  I  remember  how  strongly  he  urged  them  to 
retain  their  independence  and  their  individuality;  the  old 
district  system  died  hard.  But  it  is  dead,  and  who  would 
bring  it  to  life  again? 

I  believe  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  has  taken  the  boldest  step 
which  is  likely  to  meet  with  the  approval  of  this  Convention, 
in  reducing  this  house  about  100,  and  that  if  we  go  to  the 
people  with  this  proposition,  it  will  be  one  that  they  will  ratify 
all  but  unanimously.  It  would  reduce  the  legislative  ex- 
penses so  that  we  could  spend  more  money  elsewhere,  where 
it  is  badly  needed.  I  wish  it  were  within  the  power  of  this 
body  to  appropriate  annually  $50,000  for  good  roads  in  the 
country  districts,  and  if  we  could  do  that  by  a  Constitutional 
amendment,  as  is  done  in  some  states,  I  should  be  heartily 
in  favor  of  it. 

I  am  in  favor  of  the  reduction  of  the  expenses,  both  of  our 
legislature,  and  by  doing  away  with  Constitutional  Conven- 
tions, in  order  that  we  may  spend  money  more  liberally  in 
other  directions  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  There 
faces  us,  and  must  continue  to  face  us,  the  question  of  better 
roads  and  better  schools,  if  we  are  to  keep  pace  with  our  sister 
states  in  those  matters.  We  are  not  facing  any  theory,  but 
facts.  We  need  improvements  in  our  roads,  and  in  our  com- 
mon schools,  and  if  we  could  secure  such  an  amendment  as 
that  by  the  delegates  of  this  Convention,  and  its  ratification 
by  the  people,  it  would  certainly  be  doing  a  good  thing  for 
the  state. 

Now  if  we  were  to  divide  the  state  into  300  districts, 
according  to  the  population, — I  may  be  wrong  about  it,  but 
I  am  inclined  to  think  that  such  a  radical  measure  as  that  is 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  159 

more  likely  to  meet  with  approval  by  the  people  than  any 
system  we  can  get  through  the  Convention  by  discussing 
town  lines,  etc.  If  we  obliterated  the  lines  of  the  school  dis- 
tricts, and  did  not  suffer  by  it,  why  cannot  we  obliterate  town 
lines  in  the  matter  of  representation.  I  believe  firmly  that 
if  this  Convention  adopted  that  idea,  and  the  people  approved 
of  it,  in  a  few  years  there  would  be  as  few  people  who  would 
think  of  going  back  to  the  town  system  as  there  are  now 
people  who  would  think  of  going  back  to  the  district  school 
system.  We  have  got  at  some  time  or  other  to  take  this  step, 
and  if  we  do  not  take  it  now,  some  other  Convention  will 
do  it. 

I  know  the  time  will  come  when  the  legislature  of  New 
Hampshire  will  be  reduced  100  and  why  not  make  the  prop- 
osition now,  and  submit  it  to  the  people,  and  give  them  our 
reasons  for  it,  and  there  are  reasons  and  good  reasons  for 
doing  it.  We  want  to  manage  the  affairs  of  this  state  as  a 
great  corporation  would  manage  its  affairs.  We  want  to 
reduce  expenses  where  we  can  without  injury,  and  put  the 
money  thus  saved  into  enterprises  that  will  do  the  most  good. 

I  do  not  intend  to  iake  up  the  time  of  this  Convention  and 
did  not  intend  to  take  the  floor  at  this  time  to  discuss  this 
matter,  but  I  wish  to  express  my  conviction  that  we  are 
wasting  time  in  not  first  deciding  the  number  to  which  the 
house  of  representatives  should  be  reduced,  and  then  it  will 
be  in  order  to  discuss  the  way  and  manner  by  which  that 
reduction  can  be  made. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — I  did  not  intend  to  make 
any  talk  upon  the  question  now  before  the  committee,  but  it 
seems  to  me  that  it  is  settled  by  the  gentlemen  who  have 
spoken  upon  the  various  propositions  that  have  been  sub- 
mitted, that  it  is  the  policy  of  the  Convention  to  reduce  the 
number  of  representatives  in  our  legislature,  but  I  do  not 
think  it  is  the  policy  to  reduce  it  very  much.  I  think  the 
sentiment  among  the  different  sections  of  the  state,  from 
which  I  have  been  able  to  get  information,  seems  to  be  that 


160    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

it  ought  to  be  reduced  about  100,  or  so  as  to  bring  it  down 
to  about  300,  and  that  our  senate  should  also  be  increased  to 
about  50.  That  would  bring  our  house  and  senate  nearer  in 
proportion  to  the  house  and  senate  of  other  states,  that  have 
been  referred  to  in  this  committee,  than  it  now  is.  I  do  not 
think  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  Convention  to  reduce  the  house 
to  200  at  this  time.  I  do  not  think  it  would  be  policy  to  at- 
tempt it,  because  we  have  got  to  get  a  two-thirds  vote  of  the 
people  to  ratify  any  action  that  we  take  here. 

I,  myself,  do  not  believe  in  a  small  house.  It  is  stated  that 
the  great  state  of  New  York  has  a  very  small  house  of  repre- 
sentatives, while  we  have  a  very  large  number  of  repre- 
sentatives. There  is  one  thing  that  New  Hampshire  can 
boast  of,  that  is,  that  it  has  the  largest  house  of  representa- 
tives in  this  country,  and  if  we  have  got  anything  larger  than 
any  other  state,  we  do  not  want  to  part  with  it  just  now. 

I  think  that  the  legislation  of  this  state  compares  favor- 
ably with  the  legislation  of  the  great  state  of  New  York, 
about  which  we  have  heard  so  much.  I  believe  that  the 
safety  of  our  people  depends  upon  a  large  house  of  repre- 
sentatives as  much  as  upon  any  other  one  thing,  and  I  also 
believe  that  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  is  wedded  to  the 
town  system,  and  I  do  not  think  the  people  want  to  exchange 
it  for  the  district  system  at  this  time. 

It  may  be,  that  at  some  time  in  the  future,  our  people  may 
think  a  district  system  better  for  them,  but  I  do  not  think 
it  is  what  we  need  to-day,  and  I  believe  in  letting  future  Con- 
ventions take  care  of  that,  if  that  time  ever  arises.  Any 
attempt  by  us  to  agree  upon  a  system,  that  will  last  for  all 
time,  will  certainly  fail. 

Various  suggestions  have  been  made  here,  and  numerous 
resolutions  have  been  introduced  before  the  committee,  but 
I  think  that  the  resolution  introduced  by  my  friend  from 
Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  for  a  reduction  of  the  members  of  the 
legislature,  is  better  than  any  other  that  has  been  presented. 
I  think,  however,  that  there  should  be  one  amendment  to 
that.  I  think  the  unit  should  be  increased  from  600  to  800, 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  161 

so  that  a  town  with  less  than  800  inhabitants  w~ould  not  be 
entitled  to  one  representative  all  the  time.  I  may  be  in 
error  upon  this  point.,  but  that  is  my  opinion.  I  do  not  know 
as  it  would  be  what  a  majority  of  this  committee  believe  in, 
and  would  want  to  report,  but,  if  that  were  done,  we  would 
then  have  111  towns  in  this  state  that  would  send  one  repre- 
sentative only  a  proportionate  part  of  the  time,  which  would 
be  an  addition,  if  I  have  correctly  estimated  it,  of  twenty-two 
towns  to  those  which  are  now  known  as  classed  towns.  That 
would  be  a  concession  on  the  part  of  those  towns  as  great  as 
it  would  be  on  the  part  of  the  large  towns  and  cities,  to  make 
reduction  by  increasing  the  number  for  the  second  and 
third  representative  to  2,000,  which  I  believe  to  be  the  desire 
of  the  Convention. 

I  have  heard  so  many  figures  and  estimates  made  bj 
various  members  here,  that  I  am  at  a  loss  to  say  exactly 
what  should  be  done.  I  think,  however,  that  we  have  made 
fine  progress  so  far,  and  have  gained  a  great  amount  of 
information  upon  this  subject,  and,  after  a  little  time  to 
think  these  matters  over,  I  have  no  doubt  that  we  can  formu- 
late a  resolution,  which"  will  reduce  the  house  of  represen- 
tatives 100  in  number,  or  approximately  that,  so  as  to  have 
a  house  composed  of  about  300  members;  and  then  we  should 
increase  our  senate  to  about  fifty,  and  I  think  that  we  would 
then  have  no  difficulty,  when  we  go  before  the  people,  in 
getting  such  amendments  adopted.  I  do  not  think  it  is  now 
contemplated  that  we  are  to  make  an  amendment  which  is 
to  last  for  all  time,  and,  it  seems  to  me,  that  it  cannot  be 
supposed  by  anybody  of  common  sense  that  we  are  to  make 
an  amendment  which  will  last  longer  than  thirty  years,  be- 
cause, in  thirty  years,  conditions  will  change,  population  will 
change,  and  almost  everything  is  liable  to  change.  The 
inhabitants  of  this  state  thirty  years  hence  will,  without 
doubt,  want  to  call  another  Convention  to  amend  the  Consti- 
tution, and  I  believe  in  leaving  something  for  them  to  do, 
when  that  time  arrives.  If  we  can  retain  the  town  system, 
and  reduce  the  house  to  300  members,  we  shall  then  have 
done  our  full  duty. 
11 


162    JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover — I  do  not  propose  at  this  time  to 
enter  into  any  lengthy  discussion,  hut,  like  the  gentleman 
who  has  preceded  me,  I  have  "been  trying  to  determine  in  my 
own  mind  what  seems  to  he  best. 

Now,  following  in  the  line  of  what  he  has  said,  and  what 
has  been  heard  by  me  from  others  in  this  Convention,  it 
seems  that  a  reduction  to  about  300  is  more  satisfactory  than 
any  other.  That  may  be  too  large,  but  from  what  I  have 
heard  it  is  apparently  all  right.  That  brings  us,  then,  to 
these  two  propositions,  the  question  of  a  district  system  and 
the  question  of  a  town  system. 

I  believe,  and  we  all  believe, — I  have  yet  to  learn  that  there 
is  a  dissenting  voice, — that  we  should  retain  the  town  system, 
if  we  can  do  so.  Is  there  a  man  in  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire who  does  not  desire  to  do  so  ?  That  being  a  fact,  we  all 
stand  upon  the  ground  that  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  are 
in  favor  of  retaining  the  town  system.  The  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Senator  Chandler,  and  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Lyford,  and  one  or  two  others  have  suggested,  I 
think  all  of  them,  that  when  this  Convention  acts  it  should 
act  in  such  a  manner  that  the  people  would  ratify  its  doings. 

The  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  has  proposed 
the  best  amendment,  and  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  as  I 
understand,  represents  a  town  that  will  lose  one  third  of  its 
representation  under  the  amendment  he  proposes,  and  I  think 
the  gentleman  from  Newport  believes  that  his  constituency 
would  consent  to  such  a  concession  upon  their  part.  It 
would  then  have  a  representation  of  only  two  members,  in- 
stead of  three.  The  gentleman  from  Peterborough,  Mr. 
Scott,  represents  a  town  that  would  lose  one  half  of  its  repre- 
sentation, but  he  and  his  constituents  are  well  satisfied,  and 
there  is  no  objection  heard  from  him,  but  on  the  contrary  he 
has  intimated  that  his  town  would  ratify  it.  The  gentle- 
man from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Kent,  has  also  expressed  his  ap- 
proval of  the  town  system,  although  his  town  would  lose  by 
means  of  it,  and  there  are  many  others  here  in  the  same 
situation  who  do  not  object  to  this  proposition. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  163 

Now,  gentlemen,  is  there  anyone  to  say  that  the  city  of 
Manchester,  with  its  present  large  representation,  and  the 
representation  it  would  have  under  such  an  amendment, 
would  vote  against  this  ratification;  is  there  any  man  in  this 
Convention  that  believes  they  will?  Will  the  city  of  Con- 
cord vote  against  it? 

There  is  a  sentiment  in  favor  of  the  town  system.  One  of 
the  generals  of  Napoleon  said  that  a  certain  thing  was  only 
one  of  imagination  and  sentiment.  "  Sentiment  and  imagi- 
nation," says  the  great  Napoleon,  "rule  the  world."  That 
sentiment  for  the  town  system  must  be  taken  into  consid- 
eration in  what  we  do.  So  far  as  the  town  I  represent  is 
concerned,  it  makes  no  difference  whether  we  have  the  dis- 
trict system  or  the  town  system  as  to  representation.  There 
will  be  one  representative,  and  only  one,  but  I  believe  that 
that  town  and  others  similarly  situated,  would  all  prefer  to 
maintain  the  town  system,  instead  of  going  to  the  district 
system. 

To  summarize,  it  seems  to  me,  it  comes  apparently  to  this. 
The  sentiment  is  to  reduce  the  house  of  representatives  to 
300;  the  town  system  will  do  it,  as  well  as  the  district  sys- 
tem, and  by  the  former  there  will  be  preserved  this  system, 
under  which  New  Hampshire  has  prospered  and  been  re- 
spected. 

Mr.  Dudley  of  Colebrook — This  seems  to  me  to  be  a  sort 
of  an  experience  meeting,  and  I  want  to  state  my  experience, 
with  the  rest  of  the  brethren. 

I  come  from  a  town  that  has  now  two  representatives,  and 
by  the  town  system,  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  New- 
port, Mr.  Barton,  we  shall  lose  one  of  the  number;  but  we  will 
bear  it  pleasantly,  and  take  our  medicine  with  a  smile.  I 
believe  thoroughly,  from  the  bottom  of  my  heart,  in  the  town 
system  in  the  little  republics  of  New  Hampshire. 

I  am  not  scared  by  the  size  of  the  house  of  representatives. 
In  my  younger  days  I  used  to  teach  school,  and  I  never  saw  a 
big  school  that  did  not  do  better  than  a  small  one.  The 


164    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

gentleman  from  Concord,,  Mr.  Lamprey,  wants  to  cut  us 
down  so  that  nobody  can  go  to  the  representative  school  but 
the  big  scholars,  and  so  he  would  have  a  select  school.  He 
wants  to  save  the  money  for  roads;  haven't  we  already  our 
new  boulevard?  He  wants  to  save  it  for  schools;  haven't  we 
education  enough,  when  Dartmouth  beats  Brown  at  the  foot- 
ball game? 

I  think,  without  further  nonsense  about  it,  that  the  town 
system  is  the  only  one  that  commends  itself  to  the  mind  and 
heart  of  every  person  in  this  house,  regardless  of  the  eloquent 
argument  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford.  If 
we  are  to  have  a  district  system,  leaving  out  some  of  the  de- 
tails at  the  encf  of  his  proposed  amendment,  which  to  me 
would  be  very  objectionable,  I  do  not  know  as  we  could  have 
anything  better  than  such  an  amendment  as  he  proposes. 
But  I  do  not  believe  that  we  want  the  district  system  at  all. 

There  seems  to  be  a  strong  feeling  among  a  majority  of  the 
members  of  the  Convention,  that  we  should  stick  to  the  old 
basis  of  600  for  the  first  representative,  and  have  the  num- 
ber for  the  additional  representatives  larger  than  at  the  pres- 
ent time.  Others  from  the  cities  and  the  larger  towns  seem 
to  think  this  unfair/but  it  seems  to  me  that  the  advantage 
that  the  small  towns  might  appear  to  gain  by  this  basis  of 
600  is  fully  offset,  and  more  than  offset,  in  the  cities,  by  an 
excess  of  population  that  is  not  a  voting  population. 

We  all  know  that  in  the  cities,  especially  in  manufacturing 
cities,  the  proportion  of  women  and  children  to  the  number 
of  voters  is  much  larger  than  in  the  country,  and  in  making 
up  the  increase  for  representation,  the  cities  can  count  every 
man,  woman,  and  child,  and  reckon  them  in  its  population, 
for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  number  of  representatives  to  be 
sent  to  the  legislature. 

The  small  towns  are  made  up  mostly  of  native  stock,  and 
nearly  all  the  men  over  twenty-one  years  of  age  are  voters; 
whereas,  in  the  cities,  there  is  a  large  class  of  unnaturalized 
foreigners  who  do  not  vote,  but  still  are  counted  as  among 
the  population.  I  say,  therefore,  that  the  discrepancy  occa- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  165 

sioned  by  increasing  the  number  of  persons  for  the  addi- 
tional representative  is  more  than  corrected  by  the  number 
of  those  in  the  cities  who  are  not  a  part  of  the  voting  popu- 
lation. 

I  do  not  believe  in  putting  this  matter  on  a  basis  of  votes, 
or  ratable  polls.  We  are  all  acquainted  with  the  methods  of 
making  up  the  check-lists  at  the  present  time.  These  lists 
are  stuffed  now,  and  if  necessary  to  stuff  them  more,  they 
would  be  stuffed  more.  Let  us  get  down  to  the  basis  of  the 
United  States  census,  and  upon  that  basis  try  to  present 
something  to  the  people  that  they  will  be  satisfied  with,  and 
when  we  get  home,  let  us  all  set  ourselves  up  as  school- 
masters and  teach  every  voter  that  he  ought  to  vote  for 
whatever  is  here  adopted. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — Before  this  Convention  closes  for 
the  day,  it  seems  to  me  the  attention  of  this  body  ought  to 
be  called  to  the  fact  that  if  the  rural  towns  have  any  advan- 
tage under  the  present  situation,  it  is  only  on  account  of  the 
fact  that  the  large  towns  and  cities  have  not  availed  them- 
selves of  the  privilege  of  having  the  same  representation  that 
these  small  towns  enjoy.  Under  the  present  Constitution, 
if  the  cities  which  had  been  chartered  in  the  last  ten  years 
had,  prior  to  the  last  census,  divided  themselves  into  wards 
of  600  inhabitants  each,  they  might  have  enjoyed  double  tin; 
representation  that  they  have  to-day.  If  the  city  of  Man- 
chester was  divided  into  wards  of  600  each,  they  might  have 
nearly  fifty  additional  representatives,  over  what  they  have 
to-day.  If  the  city  of  Franklin  had  been  disposed  to  avail 
itself  of  this  privilege,  it  might  have  to-day  ten  represen- 
tatives instead  of  five. 

I  call  your  attention  to  this  for  two  reasons:  First,  our 
friends  that  live  in  the  rural  districts  ought  to  appreciate  the 
fact  that  this  matter  of  representation  is  not  a  matter  that 
the  people  of  the  large  towns  and  cities  have  thought  was  of 
very  great  moment,  because  none  of  them  have  availed  them- 
selves of  the  privilege  they  now  have  under  the  Constitution 


166    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

as  it  is.  My  second  reason  is,  that  you  may  bear  this  in  mind 
when  you  come  to  revise  the  Constitution,  in  determining  how 
you  wish  to  revise  it.  If  you  go  on  the  basis  presented  in 
several  bills,  of  having  600  for  the  first  representative,  and  a 
larger  mean  increase  for  the  other  representatives,  and  do 
not  limit  the  size  of  the  house  of  representatives,  you  are 
going  to  come  out  in  a  few  years  with  a  house  as  large  as  you 
have  it  to-day. 

It  is  my  opinion  that  the  only  way  to  fix  this  is  to  fix  abso- 
lutely in  the  Constitution  the  number  that  the  house  shall 
consist  of. 

I,  too,  gentlemen,  am  in  favor  of  making  this  body  as  large 
as  practicable.  I  do  not  think  that  we  can  afford  to  cut  it 
down  below  300.  If  we  do  there  will  be  great  danger  that 
our  action  here  will  not  be  approved  by  the  people.  I  be- 
lieve the  way  to  do  this,  and  the  only  way,  is  that  provided 
in  the  amendment  presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord, 
Mr.  Lyford,  fixing  the  size  of  the  house  absolutely. 

Then,  the  next  thing  that  comes  up  is  whether  the  basis 
should  be  on  population  or  the  number  of  voters.  I  do  not 
think  there  is  much  difference  in  the  sentiment  of  this  Con- 
vention in  regard  to  that.  I  think  the  people  want  popu- 
lation as  the  basis  of  representation.  They  have  already  had 
a  former  experience,  based  upon  ratable  polls,  or  taxpayers, 
as  a  basis,  which  they  abandoned.  It  is  such  a  system  as 
they  would  not  want  to  return  to  at  this  time.  The  basis  of 
voters  would  be  a  varying  basis;  would  be  a  basis  which  would 
change  from  year  to  year,  and  might  be  changed,  and  always 
would  be  changed,  by  the  supervisors  of  the  town,  in  accord- 
ance with  their  political  views  and  their  considerations  of 
expediency.  I  do  not  think  it  worth  while  to  spend  much 
time  on  that  point,  because  I  think  it  is  settled  in  the  minds 
of  the  members  of  this  Convention  that  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation must  be  by  population. 

Now  the  other  question  is,  whether  we  shall  continue  the 
town  system  or  the  district  system.  I  am  in  favor  of  pre- 
serving the  town  system,  so  far  as  it  can  be  preserved,  and  I 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  167 

think  that  is  the  sentiment  of  the  large  majority  in  this 
body;  but  when  we  come  to  consider  it,  there  is  not  a  great 
difference  between  the  method  of  representation  by  towns 
and  the  method  of  representation  by  districts,  as  to  the  re- 
sults. I  have  examined  the  bill  of  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Lyford,  and  I  see  that  it  provides  that  towns  and 
wards  shall  be  divided  into  voting  districts,  so  that  the  aver- 
age of  population  will  be  1,370.  I  take  it  that  under  that 
bill  every  town  and  ward  that  had  1,370  population  would 
have  one  representative;  if  it  had  double  that  amount,  it 
would  have  two  representatives,  and  it  would  be  a  district  on 
that  basis.  I  think  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Ly- 
ford,  would  himself  agree  to  amendments  to  his  bill  that 
would  preserve  this  independence  of  the  towns  and  wards, 
so  far  as  it  can  be  preserved.  I  think,  probably,  it  would  be 
well  to  provide  an  amendment  to  that  bill,  that  where  towns 
and  wards  agree  on  their  basis  of  representation,  they  would 
not  be  classified.  That  is,  take  it,  for  instance,  in  relation  to 
a  ward  in  the  city  that  I  represent.  That  ward  would  have 
one  representative,  and  a  margin  of  1,000  or  1,200,  not 
enough  for  another  representative.  It  is  my  opinion  that 
that  ward  would  rather  take  one  representative  than  be  classed 
with  another  town  or  ward  and  take  its  chances  in  having 
two.  So,  from  that  ward  there  would  be  a  surplus  of  about 
1,000,  which  would  not  be  represented  by  the  represen- 
tative from  that  ward;  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  bill  of  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  as  presented,  might  in 
some  way  be  amended  so  as  to  preserve  the  town  and  ward 
system  so  far  as  possible.  I  did  not  mention,  I  think,  that 
such  surplus  population  as  I  have  referred  to  in  any  large 
town  or  ward  might  be  credited  and  divided  among  the 
smaller  towns  and  wards. 

It  certainly  cannot  be  urged  against  this  bill  presented  for 
a  district  system,  that  it  is  not  perfectly  fair,  perfectly  equal. 
It  takes  the  counties,  first,  on  the  basis  of  population,  and 
divides  the  representatives  among  those  counties  in  propor- 
tion to  their  population.  The  house  of  representatives  can 


168    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

never  go  above  300,  and  if  your  population  increases  in  the 
next  ten  years,  it  simply  changes  your  ratio.  I  think  that  if 
that  bill  was  amended,  so  as  to  preserve,  as  far  as  possible,  the 
town  and  ward  lines,  and  thus  retain  the  town  system  where 
it  can  be  retained,  it  would  be  the  best  measure  that  could  be 
adopted  by  this  Convention.  The  bill  adequately  meets  the 
situation  and  is  the  only  basis  on  which  we  can  arrive  at  a 
permanent  solution  of  this  question,  as  it  seems  to  me. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  wish  the  gentleman  from  Frank- 
lin would  elaborate  a  little  more  fully  that  point  in  the 
measure  which  he  put  out  to  the  public  before  this  Con- 
vention sat,  in  regard  to  the  distribution  of  the  surplus  popu- 
lation. He  has  touched  upon  it  here,  but  I  should  like  to 
have  him  elaborate  it  a  little  more  fully. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — I  might  say  here  that  I  had  given 
this  subject  some  study  and  had  made  up  my  mind  substan- 
tially in  regard  to  this  matter  before  I  saw  the  bill  intro- 
duced by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford. 

I  came  to  an  independent  conclusion  that  it  would  not  be 
safe  to  reduce  the  size  of  this  house  below  300,  and  I  then 
tried  to  work  out  the  matter  of  representation  by  towns  and 
wards,  but  could  not  do  so  by  strictly  adhering  to  the  town 
system.  It  is  my  idea  that  under  practically  such  a  bill  as 
the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  has  introduced, 
with  certain  amendments  that  might  be  made  to  it,  the  house 
could  be  kept  at  the  number  of  300,  and  at  the  same  time  the 
town  and  ward  system,  based  upon  population,  could  be  main- 
tained to  a  large  extent.  Under  his  bill,  a  population  of 
1,370  would  have  one  representative;  in  order  to  have  two 
representatives,  it  must  have  twice  that  population;  and  in 
order  to  have  three  representatives,  three  times  that  popu- 
lation, etc. 

Now  a  town  or  ward  would  naturally  have  a  surplus  popu- 
lation over  and  above  what  would  be  necessary  to  give  it  a 
representation  of  one  or  two  representatives,  as  the  case 
might  be,  and  that  surplus  population  should  be  applied  for 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  169 

the  benefit  of  other  towns  and  wards  in  the  county,  provided 
the  total  number  of  representatives  from  that  county  should 
not  exceed  the  total  number  allowed,  which  is  allowed  to  it 
under  the  bill  as  introduced.  On  this  basis,  the  city  of  Frank- 
lin would  have  a  representation  of  three,  and  a  surplus  popu- 
lation of  about  3,000,  which  would  go  to  the  benefit  of  the 
smaller  adjoining  towns. 

In  thinking  it  over,  I  think  that  in  the  county  of  Merri- 
mack  there  would  be  such  a  surplus  population  of  about 
7,000,  and  that  surplus  population  could  be  distributed 
around  among  small  towns  of  this  county,  which  would  giv-3 
those  a  representative  where,  otherwise,  they  would  not  have 
one.  You  will  find  in  every  large  ward  and  town  that  there 
would  be  a  large  surplus  in  population  above  what  would 
probably  entitle  the  town  or  ward  to  a  representative  and 
that  surplus  could  be  distributed  or  credited  to  the  smaller 
towns  and  wards,  and  in  that  way  they  would  help  out.  They 
would  have  a  great  advantage  over  what  would  be  their  repre- 
sentation on  a  basis  of  their  actual  population,  and  still  your 
house  would  never  increase  above  the  number  to  which  you 
should  limit  it. 

Mr.  Smith  of  New  Hampton — I  would  like  to  inquire  of 
the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  if  he  believed  his  town  would 
make  a  present  of  all  the  surplus  population  to  some  other 
town? 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — My  idea  would  be  this:  As  I 
understand  the  bill  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Lyford,  it  provides  that  each  county  is  entitled  to 
such  a  number  of  representatives  as  its  population  bears  to 
the  whole  number.  I  believe  that  his  bill  could  be  easily 
amended  so  that  each  town  or  ward  would  be  entitled  to 
representation  according  to  its  proportion  of  the  population, 
and  then  the  surplus  that  was  left  over  should  be  allotted  by 
the  legislature  in  some  way  to  the  smaller  towns,  if  they  didn't 
choose  to  be  classed  with  other  towns.  This  would  be  fair 


170    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

and  equitable  and  would  preserve  to  a  large  extent  the  town 
system. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — I  would  like  to  inquire  of  the 
gentleman  from  Franklin,  I  understood  you  to  say  that  you 
lived  in  a  ward  that  would  be  entitled  to  one  representative 
on1  the  basis  of  1,370  population  to  each  representative,  and 
that  there  would  be  a  surplus  of  about  1,000? 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — That  is  one  of  the  wards  in  my 
city. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — I  wish  the  gentleman  would 
explain  to  the  committee  in  what  way  that  surplus  of  1,000 
should  be  distributed  throughout  the  county  of  Merrimack. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — The  house  of  representatives 
would  do  it  as  they  now  apportion  the  classed  towns  in  the 
state. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
I  believe  thoroughly  in  the  town  system,  although  I  have  the 
honor  to  represent  one  of  the  wards  of  the  city  of  Nashua. 
We  must,  in  my  opinion,  have  the  towns  of  New  Hampshire 
retain  their  individuality.  The  power  which  those  towns 
to-day  enjoy  must  not  be  taken  away. 

Something  has  been  said  during  the  discussion  in  regard 
to  the  system  which  now  prevails  in  Massachusetts.  I  have 
given  some  time  to  the  consideration  of  that  system,  and 
have  observed  the  working  of  it  in  that  commonwealth 
personally.  I  am  informed  from  reliable  sources  of  some 
very  great  objections  to  the  system,  and,  as  appears  to  my 
mind,  the  very  same  objections  are  applicable  to  the  plan 
suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  Mr.  Leach. 
Three  towns  of  the  commonwealth  of  Massachusetts,  on  the 
border-line  of  my  city,  are  classed  in  a  district.  The  gentle- 
man who  is  now  presiding  over  this  Convention  inquired 
this  morning  as  to  whether  the  towns  of  New  Hampshire 
could  all  be  represented  under  any  possible  town  system,  and 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  171 

the  answer  was  "  No."  But  the  effect  in  Massachusetts  is 
that  there  are  towns  under  their  system  absorbed  by  the  other 
towns  in  the  district,  and  prevented  from  any  individual 
representation  at  all.  That  is  the  serious  objection  to  your 
district  system.  The  town  of  Litchfield,  as  I  remember,  is 
entitled  to  individual  representation,  under  the  present 
arrangement,  once  in  four  years.  Better  that  they  should 
have  representation  once  in  six  years,  than  that  they  should  be 
classed  with  Hudson,  Londonderry,  and  other  adjoining 
towns,  all  of  which  are  larger,  and  be  deprived  of  a  repre- 
sentative from  their  own  town. 

What  reason  is  there  for  a  change  to-day?  Why  this 
discussion?  Simply  because  the  state  house  is  not  large 
enough.  No  one  complains  of  the  character  of  our  legis- 
lation; no  one  complains  that  the  legislation  of  New  Hamp- 
shire does  not  compare  favorably  with  the  legislation  of  any 
other  state  in  this  Union,  and  certainly  it  is  not  open  to  the 
criticism,  and  never  has  been,  that  the  legislatures  of  some 
of  the  states  which  have  been  mentioned  here  to-day  have  been 
criticised  and  condemned  for  throughout  this  country. 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  it  is  because  we  have  got  to  enlarge 
the  state  house,  if  that  is  the  only  reason,  then  let  us  consider 
that  one  proposition.  I  believe  in  the  towns,  and  the  nearer 
you  get  to  the  soil  the  better  the  men.  I  rely  upon  the 
representatives  of  the  towns  to  guide  us,  and  when  I  say 
that,  I  am  not  reflecting  upon  the  representatives  of  the 
cities. 

I  hope,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  we  shall  retain  the 
town  system,  and  that  we  shall  retain  the  present  law,  rather 
than  adopt  the  district  system,  and  rob  the  towns  of  New 
Hampshire  of  the  individuality  which  they  enjoy  to-day. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — I  have  voted  under  the  district 
system  of  Massachusetts  for  twenty  years,  and  I  wish  to 
make  this  explanation: 

Under  that  system  three  towns,  the  towns  of  Easton,  Eayn- 
ham,  and  Mansfield,  were  classed  together  as  one  district^ 


172    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

and  they  alternated,  in  proportion  to  the  population,  in 
sending  a  representative,  or  in  sending  a  man  from  each 
town  as  a  representative  in  the  different  years.  In  that 
way,  the  voters  of  the  town  voted  every  year,  and  they  also 
had  their  proportion  of  their  citizens  as  representative.  Is 
not  that  a  great  deal  better  than  it  is  to  vote  for  a  repre- 
sentative and  be  represented  in  the  legislature  only  once  in 
five  years,  because  some  of  the  towns  in  New  Hampshire 
are  represented  only  one  fifth  of  the  time — there  are  four 
years  out  of  five  that  they  are  not  represented  at  all — and, 
as  it  seems  to  me,  the  voters  and  inhabitants  in  those  towns 
are  practically  dead  four  years  out  of  five,  so  far  as  the 
legislature  of  the  state  is  concerned.  Under  the  district 
system  they  would  be  alive  each  and  every  year,  and  in 
every  year  they  would  be  fully  represented  in  the  legislature. 

A  Delegate — I  had  just  as  soon  not  be  represented  at  all 
as  to  be  represented  by  a  man  not  from  my  town.  What 
good  does  it  do  me  to  be  represented  by  a  man  whose  interests 
belong  to  another  town,  and*  who  does  not  help  our  town? 
I  would  also  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Lamprey,  if  it  is  not  better  to  be  resurrected  once  in  five 
years  than  to  be  dead  forever. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — You  would  not  be  dead  at  all; 
that  is  the  very  point  I  was  making. 

Mr.  Hadley  of  Temple — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I 
did  not  intend  to  enter  into  this  discussion  this  afternoon, 
although  I  did  wish  to  have  a  word  to  say  at  some  time  before 
the  vote  was  taken.  But  I  feel  so  much  encouraged  by  what 
I  have  heard  here  since  dinner  that  it  is  actually  impossible 
for  me  to  keep  my  seat  any  longer. 

I  am  thoroughly  in  sympathy  with  preserving  the  town 
system.  That  is  what  I  was  sent  up  here  for.  I  had  no 
idea  of  coming,  but  my  town,  which  is  a  small  town,  sent 
me  here  because  they  knew  I  was  always  a  fighter  for  the 
small  towns  and  the  rural  communities.  I  did  not  suppose 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  173 

that  we  were  to  have  any  assistance  from  any  of  the  lawyers 
or  statesmen,  or  those  who  are  considered  the  big  men  from 
the  cities;  but  when  the  gentleman  from  Somersworth,  Mr. 
Edgerly,  and  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr.  Hamblett, 
and  the  gentleman  from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Kent,  came  up  here 
and  told  us  what  they  were  going  to  do,  I  tell  you  that  we 
felt  encouraged. 

It  has  been  my  privilege  and  pleasure  to  meet  with  the 
people  in  the  rural  sections  of  the  state  within  the  last  six 
months,  of  every  town  in  our  county,  and  I  have  taken  the 
occasion  to  talk  with  the  people  with  reference  to  reducing 
the  house  of  representatives.  I  tell  you  that  any  system  that 
is  proposed  here  and  carried,  even  by  this  Convention,  to 
the  people,  which  does  not  preserve  the  town  system,  will 
never  be  ratified  by  the  people  of  New  Hampshire,  in  my 
opinion.  I  had  prepared  some  figures,  with  reference  to 
this  matter,  but  I  will  refrain  from  putting  them  in  at  this 
time,  at  least.  I  do  believe  that  a  population  of  600  for  the 
first  representative  is  all  right,  and  will  be  satisfactory  to 
all  these  small  towns.  We  are  represented  once  or  twice  in 
six  years,  as  it  is  at  the  present  time.  My  own  town  only 
sends  a  representative  one  half  of  the  time,  but  we  are 
satisfied  with  that.  I  believe  that  it  is  all  right  to  have 
2,000  inhabitants  for  the  next  representative;  I  believe,  with 
my  friend  from  Peterborough,  Mr.  Scott,  that  perhaps  3,000 
would  be  better,  but  that  would  be  a  little  harder  of  ratifi- 
cation by  the  people.  We  do  not  want  to  come  here  and 
do  anything  that  will  be  entirely  undone.  So  I  do  hope 
that  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr. 
Barton,  when  the  time  comes  for  voting,  will  be  adopted, 
and  I  know  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  will  stand  by  and 
ratify  it,  and  I  believe  that  it  will  be  the  most  acceptable  of 
any  proposition. 

Above  all,  let  us  not  go  into  the  district  system  in  New 
Hampshire. 

Mr.  Fairbanks  of  Cornish — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
I  have  no  doubt  but  every  man  in  this  Convention  has,  in  his 


174    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

heart,  a  feeling  of  love  and  pride  for  the  old  state  of  New 
Hampshire. 

We  were  sent  here  because  our  constituents  believed  we 
would  do  what  is  best  for  the  whole  state,  but  there  are  repre- 
sented here  so  many  different  interests  that  we  could  not 
expect,  as  it  would  be  impossible,  for  all  of  us  to  think  alike 
as  regards  what  ought  to  be  done. 

But  it  seems  to  me  that  it  is  for  the  interest  of  our  state 
that  we  should  not  adopt  the  district  system. 

I  think  I  fully  appreciate  the  benefit  the  cities  and  large 
towns  are  to  our  state,  and  I  believe  their  interests  should  be 
protected.  It  is  true  that  under  some  of  the  propositions 
proposed  for  the  preservation  of  the  town  system,  the  cities 
will  not  have  representation  in  proportion  to  their  population 
that  some  of  the  small  towns  would;  but  I  think  that  is  fully 
ofiset  by  the  fact  that  the  people  of  our  country  towns  are 
largely  composed  of  that  class  of  people  that  were  born, 
brought  up,  and  have  always  lived  in  the  old  Granite  state, 
who  have  always  taken  an  interest  in  New  Hampshire,  and 
expect  their  children  and  grandchildren  to  do  the  same.  I 
would  not  like  to  have  the  people  of  my  county,  which  is 
composed  mostly  of  such  people,  offset  on  an  equal,  or  nearly, 
basis  with  those  people  who  come  to  the  city,  with  large 
families,  to  work  for  a  short  time  in  the  factories  and  mills, 
and  then  return  to  the  places  from  which  they  came.  Those 
people  have  but  little  interest  in  our  public  affairs,  and  have 
no  part  of  that  pride  and  patriotism  for  our  state,  and  nation, 
inspired  by  living  a  lifetime  under  the  inspiring  influences 
of  the  star  spangled  banner,  and  within  the  borders  of  the 
grandest,  most  enterprising  and  powerful  nation  on  the  face 
of  the  earth. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Acworth — When  I  came  to  Concord,  I 
little  thought  that  I  should  stand  up  and  address  such  an 
assembly  as  this.  I  thought  it  would  not  do,  that  they  would 
say  in  my  town,  "  Why,  here,  here  is  Mitchell  that  has  gone 
down  to  Concord  and  spoke."  What  a  thing  that  would  be 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  175 


to  go  back  home!     But  getting  encouragement,  as  T 
from  my  friends  here,  I  have  gotten  up  to  announce  my 
sentiments,  as  fully  and  strongly  as  I  think  it  is  necessary. 

I  respect  this  city,  and  all  the  cities  of  New  Hampshire. 
We  cannot  do  without  these  gentlemen  from  the  cities;  they 
are  what  we  want.  But  I  want  to  ask  you,  gentlemen,  can 
these  city  people  do  without  us  country  people?  Can  they 
get  along  without  us?  We  have  nothing  up  in  the  country 
where  we  live  that  encourages  us  so  much  as  the  idea  that 
we  can  be  represented,  that  a  man  from  our  own  town  can 
represent  us  in  the  legislature.  That  is  what  we  aspire  to  — 
to  come  here  to  the  legislature,  representing  our  town.  We 
have,  gentlemen,  no  city  offices  to  fill;  we  do  not  have  a 
mayor  or  councilmen,  by  which  we  can  honor  our  men;  and 
so,  gentlemen,  we  can  have  no  ambitions  in  that  direction  at 
all.  But  we  are  working  in  digging  and  tilling  the  soil,  and 
in  doing  that,  we  are  thinking  all  the  time  how  we  are  going 
to  be  represented  in  the  legislature  at  some  time.  Why, 
gentlemen,  this  is  a  great  question.  The  very  moment  that 
you  change  this  representation  from  what  it  is  now;  if  you 
cut  New  Hampshire  up  into  districts,  or  if  you  put  the  basis 
for  the  first  representative  at  800;  if  you  do  not  keep  the  basis 
where  it  is  to-day,  there  is  a  majority  of  my  section  that  will 
lose  all  their  interest,  and  you  will  lose  the  aid  you  now  get 
from  the  rural  towns  in  my  section. 

Now  I  say  that  I  am  in  favor  of  the  basis  of  representation 
being  kept  where  it  is,  at  600  for  the  first  representative,  and 
as  to  the  increasing  mean,  you  can  put  it,  gentlemen,  as  you 
see  fit.  My  idea  would  be  2,000  for  that,  and  that  would 
reduce  your  house  just  as  much  as  you  ask  for.  Perhaps  it 
would  be  better  to  put  it  at  3,000,  or  it  may  be  possible  that 
2,500  is  best,  but  that  I  am  willing  to  leave  to  you.  I  have 
not  made  any  figures,  to  see  how  those  different  methods 
would  result.  We  people  that  come  down  from  away  up 
there  in  Sullivan  county  ought  not  to  be  expected  to  do  this 
figuring  as  quickly  and  as  well  as  you.  Of  course,  we  are 
not  in  it  with  you,  in  that  respect,  but  we  do  want  to  be 


176     JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

represented  in  this  legislature,  and  we  intend  to  if  we  can 
hold  it  at  600. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen, 
there  has  been  a  notification  of  a  meeting  in  this  hall  this 
afternoon,  which  I  shall  not  attend.  I  suppose  I  would  not 
be  allowed  to  be  present,  holding  the  exact  views  which  I  do. 
I  have  forgotten  the  exact  language  of  the  invitation — 
whether  it  was  an  invitation  to  the  delegates  from  the  smaller 
towns,  or  an  invitation  to  the  delegates  in  favor  of  preserving 
the  present  town  system.  I  am  in  favor,  as  I  stated  this 
morning,  of  the  district  system,  if  we  can  get  it.  But  I 
should  judge  from  the  speeches  made  here  this  afternoon,, 
that  the  friends  of  the  district  system — who  believe  that 
sooner  or  later  this  state  will  come  to  a  district  system — will 
not  be  in  the  majority.  Even  if  it  were  possible  to  carry  the 
district  system  by  five  or  ten  votes,  I  would  not  be  in  favor 
of  sending  such  a  system,  adopted  only  by  that  majority  in 
this  Convention,  to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  for 
ratification; — because  it  would  be  voted  down.  On  the 
other  hand,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  assuming  that 
the  delegates  from  the  smaller  towns  can  carry  a  system  which 
would  keep  the  basis  for  the  first  representative  at  600,  and 
increase  the  basis  for  every  other  representative  to  2,000 — 
assuming  they  can  carry  it  through  this  Convention — I  am 
sure  it  will  not  receive  the  votes  of  two  thirds  of  the  people 
of  New  Hampshire. 

There  is  one  suggestion  to  be  made,  and  that  is  that  the 
power  of  the  legislature  over  questions  which  are  being 
considered  is  exercised  by  a  majority  vote.  When  you  have 
before  the  legislature  of  this  state  the  question  whether  there 
shall  be  a  license  law,  or  prohibition,  in  New  Hampshire, 
the  majority  of  the  legislature  determines  the  question,  and 
when  that  question  comes  to  be  voted  upon,  the  small  towns 
of  the  state  have  twice  as  much  power  as  the  large  towns,  or 
cities  have,  in  proportion  to  the  population.  That  is  to  say, 
a  citizen  of  the  small  town  has  twice  as  much  power  in  the 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  4,  1902.  177 

legislature,  in  deciding  that  question,  as  a  citizen  of  the 
large  town  or  city.  This  is  grossly  unjust. 

Yet,  Mr.  Chairman,  there  is  much  sentiment,  and  justly 
so,  about  town  representation.  It  is  easy  for  my  eloquent 
friend  from  Andover,  and  my  friends  from  Colebrook,  and 
Acworth,  and  Nashua,  to  arouse  enthusiasm  in  its  behalf. 
It  is  undoubtedly  a  noble  feeling,  and  one  honorable  to  us, 
and  much  may  be  sacrificed  to  preserve  that  system.  What  I 
wish  to  suggest  to  our  friends,  who  are  to  meet  here  after 
the  Convention  adjourns  to-day,  is  that  they  ought  to  consider 
whether,  if  we  are  to  reduce  the  house  of  representatives  from 
400  to  300,  it  should  be  done  wholly  at  the  expense  of  the 
large  towns. 

The  eloquent  gentleman  from  Acworth  has  told  you  that 
the  reduction  may  be  made  by  leaving  600  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative, and  making  2,000  for  the  second;  but  he  must 
bear  in  mind  that  one  third  of  the  people  of  this  state  can 
defeat  whatever  we  do.  So  I  suggest  that  the  plan  most 
creditable  to  us,  and  the  only  one  likely  to  be  adopted  by  the 
people  of  this  state,  is  the  plan  that  makes  some  change  of 
figures  in  the  basis  of  representation  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative. I  should  not  have  spoken  again  this  afternoon 
had  I  not  thought  I  ought  to  throw  out  these  ideas  for  the 
benefit  of  those  who  are  to  remain  here  after  adjournment. 

Upon  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough, 
Mr.  Scott,  the  committee  arose,  to  report  progress  and  ask 
leave  to  sit  again. 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton,  chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  reported  that  the  committee,  having  had  under 
consideration  the  resolutions  of  the  gentleman  from  Wood- 
stock, Mr.  Woodbury,  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Lyford,  and  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  and 
other  resolutions,  relating  to  the  legislative  department  of 
12 


178      JOUKNAL   OF    CONSTITUTIONAL   CONVENTION. 

the  government  of  our  state,  reported  progress,  but  that  the 
committee  had  no  recommendations  to  make,  and  asked  leave 
to  sit  again. 

No  objection  being  made,  leave  was  granted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lambert  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


FEIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902. 
The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  Eev.  Mr.  Dearborn  of  Eaton. 
The  journal  was  read  and  approved. 

Mr.  Rogers  of  Tilton  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  nine,  part  two  of  the  Constitution,  be 
so  amended  as  to  provide  for  a  house  of  representatives  not  to 
exceed  in  number  300. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clement  of  Manchester,  the  following 
resolution  was  adopted: 

Resolved,  That  the  President  be  authorized  to  appoint  a 
committee  of  ten,  one  from  each  county,  on  finance,  to  ap- 
prove the  accounts  of  the  officers  of  the  Convention  for  their 
compensation. 

The  committee  appointed  for  the  purpose  of  assigning 
rooms  to  the  several  standing  committees  of  the  Convention 
submitted  the  following  report: 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  179 

Committee  on  Bill  of  Eights  and  Executive  Department, 
room  No.  4. 

Committee  on  Legislative  Department,  senate  chamber. 
Committee  on  Judicial  Department,  judiciary  room. 

Committee  on  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution 
and  other  Proposed  Amendments,  room  No.  5. 

Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  Peo- 
ple the  Amendments  agreed  to  by  the  Convention,  room 
No.  8. 

HARRY  T.  LORD, 
For  the  Committee. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

Part  second  of  the  Constitution,  article  forty-one,  reads  as 
follows: 

"  There  shall  be  a  supreme  executive  magistrate,  who  shall 
be  styled  governor  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  whose 
title  shall  be  His  Excellency." 

Move  to  amend  by  striking  out  the  words  "  and  whose  title 
shall  be  His  Excellency." 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  other  Proposed 
Amendments. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin  offered  the  following  resolution: 

ART.  9.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of  300 
members.  Representation  shall  be  upon  the  basis  of  popula- 
tion of  each  town  and  ward  at  the  next  preceding  census,  and 
the  proportion  that  its  population  bears  to  the  population 
of  the  state.  The  population  requisite  for  each  represen- 


180     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

tative  shall  be  obtained  by  dividing  the  population  of  the 
state  by  300. 

Towns  and  w#rds  having  a  greater  or  less  population  than 
give  it  full  representation  may  unite  with  other  towns  and 
wards  for  the  election  of  representatives  by  written  agree- 
ment signed  by  the  selectmen  of  such  towns  and  wards 
filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  which  shall  continue  in  force 
until  the  next  census. 

ART.  10.  Such  towns  and  wards  as  have  insufficient  popu- 
lation to  elect  a  representative  and  do  not  file  written  agree- 
ments to  be  classed  with  other  towns  and  wards  as  above 
provided,  may  send  representatives  such  proportion  of  the 
time  as  their  population  bears  to  the  required  number.  The 
sessions  at  which  such  towns  and  wards  shall  elect  shall  be 
fixed  by  the  general  court  and  shall  not  be  changed  until 
after  the  next  census. 

The  legislature  may  also  apply  the  surplus  population  of 
towns  and  wards  above  what  would  count  in  its  representa- 
tion to  other  towns  and  wards  having  insufficient  population 
to  give  it  representation,  provided,  that  the  number  of  repre- 
sentatives in  any  county  shall  not  be  greater  than  the  pro- 
portion to  which  it  would  be  entitled  by  its  population  of 
the  last  preceding  census. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  ordered  printed. 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  part  second,  article  nine  of  the  Constitution, 
be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "  eighteen  hundred," 
in  the  eighth  line  of  said  article,  and  inserting  in  place 
thereof  the  words  "twenty-eight  hundred,"  and  by  striking 
out  the  words  "  two  thousand,"  in  the  tenth  line  of  said  sec- 
tion, and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  words  "  two  thou- 
sand," so  that  said  section  as  amended  shall  read: 

"  ART.  9.     There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  this  state, 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  181 

a  representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  principles  of  equality,  and,  in  order  that  such  repre- 
sentation may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every 
town,  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities 
having  eight  hundred  inhabitants  by  the  last  general  census 
of  the  state,  taken  by  authority  of  the  United  States  or  of 
this  state,  may  elect  one  representative;  if  twenty-eight  hun- 
dred such  inhabitants,  may  elect  two  representatives;  and  so 
proceeding  in  that  proportion,  making  two  thousand  such 
inhabitants  the  mean  increasing  number  for  any  additional 
representative;  provided,  that  no  town  shall  be  divided  or 
the  boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any  city  so  altered  as  to 
increase  the  number  of  representatives  to  which  such  town 
or  city  may  be  entitled  by  the  next  preceding  census;  and 
provided  further,  that,  to  those  towns  and  cities  which  since 
the  last  census  have  been  divided  or  had  their  boundaries  or 
ward  lines  changed,  the  general  court  in  session  next  before 
these  amendments  shall  take  effect  shall  equitably  apportion 
representation  in  such  manner  that  the  number  shall  not  be 
greater  than  it  would  have  been  had  no  such  division  or  alter- 
ation been  made." 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole  to 
be  considered  with  resolutions  of  like  character. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
resolved  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  consid- 
eration of  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Bow, 
Mr.  Baker,  in  relation  to  article  six,  Bill  of  Eights. 

Mr.  Jones  at  this  point  yielded  the  floor  to  Mr.  Chandler  of 
Concord,  who  introduced  the  following  order: 

Ordered,  that  on  Wednesday  next  at  12  o'clock  the  Con- 
vention in  Committee  of  the  Whole  shall  vote  on  the  fol- 
lowing propositions: 

1.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of  300  mem- 
bers. 


182     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

2.  The  members  of  the  house  of  representatives  shall  be 
elected  under  a  district  system. 

3.  The  number  of  inhabitants  required  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative under  the  town  system  shall  be ;  and  the  num- 
ber required  for  a  second  representative  shall  be  -  — . 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  above  order  was 
laid  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester  then  renewed  his  motion,  which 
prevailed,  and  the  Convention  resolved  itself  into  Committee 
of  the  Whole. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Little  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Mies  of  Concord — Mr.  Chairman,  I  move  that  the 
committee  do  now  arise  and  recommend  to  the  Convention 
that  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Bow, 
Mr.  Baker,  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights 
and  Executive  Department. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  rise  to  a  point  of  order  on  that  mo- 
tion for  this  reason.  When  the  committee  rose  yesterday, 
after  having  this  matter  under  consideration,  there  was  a 
motion  then  pending  which  should  first  be  decided.  That 
motion  was  that  the  committee  report  the  resolution  favor- 
ably, and  that  motion,  I  should  judge,  would  take  precedence 
of  the  motion  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — Js  the  gentleman  correct  in  that 
statement?  I  do  not  recollect  it  in  that  way,  but  it  is  only 
a  matter  of  memory  with  me. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — It  is  a  matter  of  absolute  certainty 
with  me,  for  I  made  the  motion  myself. 

The  Chairman — If  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker, 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  183 

is  correct  in  his  statements,  the  chair  would  rule  that  the 
point  was  well  taken. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  have  not  looked  over  the  rules 
of  the  proceedings  that  have  been  adopted  here  in  regard 
to  the  priority  of  motions,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  it  will 
commend  itself  to  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  without  raising 
any  question  for  the  Chair  to  decide,  to  withdraw  his  motion, 
if  such  is  pending,  and  allow  the  gentleman  from  Concord, 
Mr.  Xiles,  to  present  his  resolution  for  consideration,  reserv- 
ing to  himself  the  right  to  renew  that  motion  prior  to  any- 
thing else. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  have  not  the  slightest  objection  in 
the  world  to  the  consideration  of  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Concord.  Neither  have  I  the  slight- 
est objection  in  the  world  to  his  making  any  motion  or  amend- 
ment, if  that  will  bring  about  the  object  he  desires,  but  his 
motion  was,  that  we  set  this  article  practically  aside  in  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  refer  my  resolution  with 
his  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Eights  and  Executive  De- 
partment. I  am  entirely  willing  that  the  committee  should 
rise  and  relieve  itself  of  any  further  consideration  of  Mr. 
ISTiles'  amendment,  and  that  it  be  referred  to  the  committee 
he  suggested,  if  that  is  his  desire.  I  have  not  the  slightest 
objection  to  anything  of  that  kind,  but  this  motion  of  mine 
ought  to  be  considered  in  this  committee. 

(Mr.  Baker  requests  clerk  to  read  his  motion.) 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — While  I  am  positive  that  I  made  the 
motion  and  it  was  pending,  it  does  not  appear  in  the  report 
of  the  clerk,  and  I  withdraw  the  objection  that  I  made  to 
the  motion  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 

Niles. 

The  Chairman — The  question  now  is  upon  the  motion  of 


184     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mies,  that  the  committee 
do  now  arise  and  recommend  to  the  Convention  that  the 
amendment  submitted  to  the  Convention  by  the  gentleman 
from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill 
of  Eights  and  Executive  Department. 

Mr.  Mies  of  Concord — I  want  to  state  very  briefly  the  rea- 
sons for  my  asking  this  action  on  the  part  of  the  committee. 

The  purport  of  my  motion  is  that  the  two  resolutions  relat- 
ing to  article  six  of  the  Bill  of  Eights,  which  deals  with  mor- 
ality and  piety  and  religious  matters,  should  go  together  to 
a  committee  appointed  for  the  express  purpose  of  considering 
that  very  kind  of  a  question. 

An  amendment  has  been  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from 
Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  which  has  been  printed  and  distributed  and 
which  redrafts  this  entire  article  from  beginning  to  end. 
Some  of  the  language  that  formed  the  original  article  is 
retained;  a  great  deal  is  eliminated,  and  a  great  deal  that  is 
new  is  inserted.  The  changes  are  not  simply  changes  in 
language,  but  some  new  suggestions  are  inserted,  some  new 
provisions,  and  some  are  wholly  eliminated. 

I  do  not  suppose  there  will  be  found  any  one  who  will  want 
to  stand  up  and  be  counted  in  favor  of  retaining  the  words 
"  evangelical "  and  "  Protestant,"  and  Mr.  Baker's  amend- 
ments and  mine  agree  in  eliminating  those  features  from 
article  six  of  the  Bill  of  Eights.  But  we  think  differently 
in  this, — and  this  is  the  principal  thing,  and  is  the  reason 
why  I  think  it  should  go  to  a  small  select  committee  to  be 
there  first  considered, — we  think  differently  on  the  question 
whether  we  shall,  as  far  as  possible  in  every  instance,  retain 
the  exact  phraseology  and  the  exact  words  put  into  the  Con- 
stitution at  the  beginning,  or  whether  we  shall  come  here 
and  try  to  make  it  a  little  better  here  and  a  little  better  there, 
for  the  purpose  of  simply  improving  the  language. 

I  do  not  think  we  are  here  to  change  the  Constitution  all 
over,  but  simply  approach  it  in  the  most  reverent  way  to  add 
to  it  what  needs  to  be  added,  and  to  take  from  it  what  should 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  185 

be  taken  from  it;  and  this  should  be  done  with  as  little 
change  in  the  original  document  as  possible. 

We  cannot  now  consider  this  matter  in  a  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  as  well  as  it  can  be  considered  in  a  select  com- 
mittee like  the  one  on  the  Bill  of  Eights  and  Executive  De- 
partment, which  is  composed  of  men  practised  in  the  exact 
use  of  the  English  language,  and  of  men  having  a  wide  knowl- 
edge of  the  decisions  of  our  courts  with  reference  to  the 
Constitution. 

The  courts  have  had  this  matter  before  them  a  number  of 
times,  and  it  has  been  the  subject  of  several  most  important 
decisions,  and  in  all  of  those  decisions  the  exact  language  of 
the  Constitution  has  been  considered  and  construed;  and  it 
is  extremely  important  that  we  should  not,  by  modifications, 
slight  or  otherwise,  change  the  words  that  have  thus  been 
construed,  and  perhaps  cause  the  courts  to  consider  these 
modifications  and  make  new  constructions  of  them.  • 

Now  it  seems  to  me  that  the  whole  thing  should  go  to  the 
Committee  on  Bill  of  Eights.  They  can  take  it,  and  they 
can  consider  what  changes  are  proposed  in  the  language,  and 
whether  there  is  any  reason  for  such  changes,  and  if  so,  what 
reasons;  they  can  ask  introducers  of  the  amendments  to 
appear  before  them  and  to  advocate  their  proposition  and 
state  what  reasons  they  have  for  making  the  proposed  changes. 
And  then  they  can  strike  out  this  or  that  word,  and  in  that 
way  get  it  into  a  shape  in  which  they  can  report  it  to  the 
Convention,  and  all  the  Convention  will  then  have  to  do  is 
to  agree  to  the  language. 

This  is  not  an  attempt  to  squelch  any  one  or  to  obtain  any 
undue  advantage.  We  will  then  have  all  the  time  we  want 
for  debate,  and  it  will  be  in  a  shape  in  which  we  can  debate  it 
to  a  better  advantage  than  we  now  can. 

Then  there  are  certain  new  things  which  have  been  intro- 
duced in  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Bow, 
Mr.  Baker,  one  of  which  is  a  provision  that  "  no  public  money 
or  property  shall  be  appropriated  for,  or  applied  to,  the  uses 
of  any  religious  society,  sect,  or  denomination,  or  the  support 


186     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

of  any  religious  establishment."  That  is  right,  but  I  say  that 
we  have  that  provision  in  the  Constitution  now.  It  was  put 
in  in  1876  in  article  eighty-two.  That  is  my  position,  but 
Mr.  Baker  does  not  agree  with  me  that  the  language  means 
the  same  thing.  Can  we  here  sift  that  question  down  and 
go  through  the  language  word  by  word  and  syllable  by  syl- 
lable, as  it  can  be  done  by  a  select  committee  appointed  for 
that  express  purpose? 

Then  there  is  a  proposition  as  to  witnesses  and  jurors,  to 
the  effect  that  no  religious  test  shall  be  required  and  that  a 
witness  or  juror  shall  not  be  rendered  incompetent  on  account 
of  his  opinions  on  matters  of  religious  belief.  We  want  that, 
of  course,  but  how  are  we  going  to  know  whether  it  is  not  so 
now,  and  how  are  we  going  to  know  whether  there  are  not, 
perhaps,  some  other  declarations  in  our  Constitution  which 
are  based  on  religious  grounds  which  should  also  be  removed? 

This  -  committee  by  discussing  these  questions  between 
themselves,  bound  by  no  rules  of  order,  can  work  these  propo- 
sitions out  very  much  better  than  can  be  done  in  a  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  and  when  they  get  it  licked  into  shape, 
they  can  put  it  before  the  Convention  in  a  form  that  all  can 
agree  to. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — Before  the  gentleman  sits  down, 
I  would  like  to  ask  him  if  there  is  not  involved  a  principle 
between  the  two  resolutions  on  this  word  "  Christian  "• 
whether  that  should  be  retained  or  not — whether  that  is  not 
taken  out  by  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow, 
Mr.  Baker,  and  left  in  in  yours. 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord — No,  there  is  no  word  "  Christian  " 
in  the  present  article  which  is  left  in.  The  present  article 
provides  that  "  every  denomination  of  Christians  "  are  equally 
under  the  protection  of  the  law.  My  amendment  proposes 
that  should  be  stricken  out, — and  that  is  of  course  approved 
by  Mr.  Baker, — and  that  the  words  "all  persons'5  shall  be 
substituted.  I  do  not  understand  that  there  is  any  question 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  187 

there.  But  there  is  another  question,  and  it  is  a  question, 
and  the  only  one  as  far  as  I  can  see  upon  which  there  will 
ultimately  be  a  debate.  That  is  whether  the  word  "  evan- 
gelical," to  be  stricken  out,  shall  be  replaced  by  the  word 
"  Christian."  That  probably  will  come  up  for  debate  when 
we  have  gotten  it  into  some  such  shape  that  by  a  definite 
and  exact  amendment  it  can  be  taken  out  or  left  in.  Then 
it  can  be  done  with  intelligence  instead  of  talking  at  random 
all  over  the  lot,  the  way  we  have  to  do  where  there  are  two 
separate  resolutions,  as  here. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — Would  the  gentleman  insist  upon 
retaining  that  word  "  Christian  ?"  That  seems  to  be  the 
issue  between  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  and  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mies, — that  is,  whether  you 
will  make  that  broad  enough  so  that  Jews,  for  instance,  will 
be  included? 

Mr.  Mies  of  Concord — I  do  not  quite  understand. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — You  say  that  there  may  be  a  ques- 
tion that  if  the  word  "  evangelical "  is  stricken  out,  whether 
the  word  "  Christian  "  should  be  placed  in  the  Constitution 
to  take  the  place  of  that  word.  The  question  is,  therefore, 
whether  we  should  retain  the  use  of  the  words  "  Christian 
bodies  "  or  use  some  other  word  that  would  admit  Jews  and 
others. 

Mr.  Mies  of  Concord — The  place  where  it  occurs  is  in  the 
very  first  clause  of  article  six  of  the  Bill  of  Eights.  The 
clause  is  as  follows: 

"As  morality  and  piety,  rightly  grounded  on  evangelical 
principles,  will  give  the  best  security  to  government,"  etc. 

The  word  "  evangelical "  I  would  strike  out  and  substitute 
the  word  "  Christian  "  therefor. 

I  do  not,  however,  desire  to  argue  that  question  here  and 


188     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

now.  I  do  not  think  that  there  is  any  way  in  which  we  can 
do  it  here  and  now,  because  we  have  no  definite  question  be- 
fore us.  We  have  two  amendments  in  two  entirely  different 
forms,  and  until  they  are  amalgamated  by  the  committee  and 
brought  into  one  form,  which  is  definite,  we  haven't  anything 
to  argue — we  are  talking  in  the  air. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — The  real  question  involved  at  present 
is  exactly  the  one  which  has  been  developed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford.  In  making  the  draft  which 
I  had  the  honor  to  present  some  days  ago,  it  was  my  purpose 
to  rid  this  article  of  the  Bill  of  Eights  of  anything  which 
would  be  prejudicial  to  any  man's  religious  views,  whether 
Christian,  Mohammedan,  or  Jew,  and  I  believe  it  is  a  right 
that  every  man  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  ought  to 
have,  that 'his  religion  be  recognized  by  the  laws  as  well  as 
that  of  his  neighbor. 

Besides  that,  there  are  two  or  three  clauses  added  by  my 
amendment,  as  I  had  the  pleasure  of  expressing  to  you  the 
other  day,  which  are  not  included  in  the  amendment  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Niles.  But  the  gentle- 
man himself  has  to  me  approved  of  every  one  of  those  clauses, 
so  that  cannot  be  the  issue.  The  whole  issue  is  the  insertion 
of  the  word  "  Christian  "  into  this  article  as  proposed  by  him. 

It  is  true  that  the  word  "  Christian  "  includes  Protestants 
and  Catholics,  but  it  is  only  a  little  less  distasteful  than  the 
word  "  Protestant,"  because  it  includes  Catholics  as  well. 
The  principle  involved  is  as  absolutely  violated  by  the  inser- 
tion of  the  word  "  Christian  "  as  it  is  by  the  word  "  Protest- 
ant." I  am  endeavoring  to  get  this  Convention  to  place 
itself  absolutely  before  the  people,  and  the  people  before  the 
world,  through  the  Constitution  of  the  state,  in  a  non-partisan 
attitude. 

The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Niles,  said  in  the  course 
of  his  remarks,  that  there  is  already  a  clause  in  the  Consti- 
tution relative  to  the  use  of  public  moneys  for  sectarian  pur- 
poses. That  is  true,  but  it  is  an  entirely  different  clause  than 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  189 

that  inserted  in  my  amendment.  In  article  eighty-two  of 
part  two  there  is  this  proviso: 

"  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  no  money  raised  by  taxation 
shall  ever  be  granted  or  applied  for  the  use  of  the  schools  or 
institutions  of  any  religious  sect  or  denomination." 

That  does  not  say  that  the  property  of  the  state  shall  not 
be  so  used;  it  does  not  say  that  no  moneys  which  come  intc* 
the  state  treasury  in  any  other  way  than  by  taxation  shall 
not  be  so  used;  but  if  my  proposed  amendment  is  adopted,  it 
does  cut  out  entirely  the  use  of  any  public  money,,  or  property 
being  appropriated  or  applied  to  the  use  of  any  religious 
society,  sect,  or  denomination,  or  to  support  any  religious 
establishment.  You  will  see  that  there  is  nothing  whatever 
in  the  present  Constitution  to  cover  the  amendment  which  I 
have  proposed. 

Now  I  have  no  personal  objection  to  the  adoption  of  the 
motion  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mies,  if 
you  see  fit  to  adopt  it;  but,  gentlemen,  the  whole  question  is 
before  you,  and  in  the  interest  of  time  I  do  not  know  of  any 
reason  why  this  committee  is  not  capable  of  voting  on  this 
question  when  it  has  all  the  light  obtainable  on  the  subject 
of  amending  section  six  of  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — If  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Mies,  were  to  prevail, — I  am  not  saying 
that  I  shall  support  it, — I  think  it  should  be  worded  in  this 
way — that  this  amendment  be  referred  to  this  select  com- 
mittee with  instructions  to  report  an  amendment  in  which 
all  sectarian  phraseology  is  stricken  out.  Would  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  Mr.  Niles,  be  willing  to  put  his  motion  in 
that  form  and  thus  eliminate  all  need  for  discussion  at  this 
time? 

The  Chairman — The  question  is  upon  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mies.  It  has  already  been 
stated. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  move  to  amend  the  motion  in 
the  form  which  I  stated,  so  that  the  committee  will  under- 


190     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

stand  its  duty.  The  motion  is,  as  I  understand,  that  Mr. 
Baker's  amendment  be  referred  to  the  special  Committee  on 
Bill  of  Eights,  and  I  would  move  to  amend  by  adding  the 
words  "  with  instructions  to  report  an  amendment  in  which 
all  sectarian  phraseology  is  stricken  out." 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — I  would  ask  if  there  is  any  sec- 
tarian phraseology  in  the  word  "  evangelical."  It  is  a  word 
that  is  employed  in  all  Christian  religions  at  least. 

Mr.  Osgood  of  Nelson — Has  there  been  any  intoleration  or 
persecution  as  to  religious  belief  under  the  Bill  of  Rights  as 
it  stands  now?  If  not,  why  is  there  need  of  any  amendment 
to  this  article.  I  would  like  to  know  further  whether  it  is 
the  sense  of  this  Convention  that  we  are  a  Christian  nation 
or  not.  If  this  is  a  Christian  nation,  and  a  Christian  state, 
why  should  we  strike  the  word  "  Christian  "  out  of  our  Con- 
stitution. 

Mr.  Mies  of  Concord — I  do  not  think  it  is  the  proper  time, 
with  the  house  only  about  half  filled,  to  discuss  this  question 
now. 

The  Chairman — It  is  moved  by  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Mies,  that  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  that  the  committee  do  now  arise 
and  recommend  to  the  Convention  that  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  be  referred  to 
the  standing  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  De- 
partment; and  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford, 
moves  to  amend  that  motion  as  follows:  Amend  by  adding 
the  following  words:  "With  instructions  to  report  an 
amendment  in  which  all  religious  phraseology  is  stricken 
out."  The  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford.  Is 
the  committee  ready  for  the  question? 

Mr.  Mies  of  Concord — I  am  afraid  that  the  gentleman 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  191 

from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  has  bitten  off  a  little  more  than 
he  meant  to,  when  he  asked  that  all  "  religious  phraseology  "• 
be  stricken  out.  It  would  strike  out  a  great  part  of  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker, 
which  is  couched  in  the  language  of  religion  of  some  sort  or 
other.  At  any  rate,  it  refers  to  the  Deity,  which  I  suppose 
is  a  religious  term,  and  it  speaks  of  public  worship  and  pub- 
lic instruction  in  religion.  In  fact,  that  is  all  that  the  article 
is  for,  is  the  promotion  of  religious  instruction.  If  their 
report  is  to  be  in  a  form  which  shall  strike  out  all  religious 
phraseology,  it  will  strike  out  the  whole  article.  The  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  might  change  it  so  as  to  em- 
body his  idea.  But  as  his  motion  appears  now  it  would 
seem  to  go  too  far. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  understood  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  to  use  the  word  "  sectarian  "  and 
was  prepared  to  vote  upon  that  motion;  but  if  all  reference  to 
religion  and  all  religious  phraseology  is  to  be  stricken  out, 
that  is  a  proposition  of  another  sort,  and  is  the  same  propo- 
sition made  by  our  friend  from  Nashua,  Mr.  Everett. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — The  suggestion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Niles,  is  a  very  pertinent  one.  When  I 
offered  the  amendment  first  I  used  the  word  "  sectarian,"  but 
objection  was  made  to  that  word,  and  I  accepted  the  sug- 
gestion of  the  gentleman  from  Stratham,  Mr.  Wingate,  that 
the  word  "  religious  "  should  be  used.  I  now  desire  to  strike 
out  the  word  "  religious  "  and  use  the  word  "  sectarian." 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord — I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  whether  that  would  bar  the  word 
"  Christian,"  whether  he  regards  the  word  "  Christian  "  as  a 
sectarian  word. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  think  the  committee  will  under- 
stand the  amendment  when  they  come  to  act  upon  this  sub- 
ject. 


192    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Sloan  of  Woodsville — It  seems  unwise  to  me  to  in- 
struct this  committee  as  to  its  duties.  It  practically  amounts 
to  our  determining  the  matter  before  it  goes  before  them  for 
consideration.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  special  committee 
to  which  this  matter  is  referred  fully  understands  the  propo- 
sition, and  its  seems  to  me  that  they  should  be  left  free  to 
take  these  two  measures  and  consider  them,  and  after  due 
consideration  to  report  whichever  one  they  see  fit,  or  draft 
such  another  measure  as  they  think  best.  I  hope  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  will  not 


Mr.  Niles  of  Concord — With  the  consent  of  the  other  mem- 
bers of  the  committee,  I  will  accept  the  amendment,  under- 
standing that  we  will  get  an  opportunity  to  debate  this  ques- 
tion with  reference  to  its  precise  form  when  there  is  a  full 
membership  of  the  Convention. 

The  Chairman — With  the  unanimous  consent  of  the  com- 
mittee this  can  be  done.  So  that  the  committee  will  con- 
sider that  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from. 
Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  is  added  to  the  motion  made  by  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mies. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  do  not  rise  for  the  purpose  of 
discussing  the  question — the  theological  question  as  to  the* 
difference  between  "  evangelical  "  and  "  Christian."  That 
would  be  going  to  the  merits  of  the  proposition  involved. 
But  in  view  of  the  fact  that  we  are  approaching  the  Sabbath, 
the  inquiry  of  the  gentleman  from  Nelson,  Mr.  Osgood,  as: 
to  whether  this  is  a  Christian  state,  is  a  pertinent  one.  My 
answer  is  that  New  Hampshire  is  a  Christian  state,  and  is 
one  that  treats  the  faith  of  all  persons  alike,  whether  Jew  or 
Gentile.  And  this  is  so  because  she  is  a  Christian  state.  As 
I  understand  it,  the  object  as  expressed  in  this  body,  and 
considered  in  this  informal  way,  is  that  the  subject  matter  of 
the  proposed  amendments  be  referred  to  a  standing  commit- 
tee to  the  end  that  the  standing  committee  shall  proceed  in 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  193 

its  investigations,  having  in  mind  and  respecting  the  informal 
expression  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

I  desire,  and  my  purpose  in  rising  was,  to  address  a  legal 
question  to  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  who  is  a 
distinguished  lawyer — not  for  the  purpose  of  at  all  criticising 
his  draft — but  for  the  purpose  of  getting  his  view  upon  the 
question  whether  or  not  the  proviso  already  existing  in  article 
eighty-two  of  part  two  of  the  Constitution,  which  was  inserted 
in  1877,  as  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Niles,  has  sug- 
gested, does  not  in  substance  cover  what  he  proposes  in  the 
last  paragraph  of  his  draft,  to  which  I  would  invite  the  atten- 
tion of  the  committee. 

"  Xo  public  money  or  property  shall  be  appropriated  for, 
or  applied  to,  the  use  of,  or  the  support  of,  any  religious  estab- 
lishment," etc. 

The  proviso  in  the  Constitution,  article  eighty-two,  as  it 
stands  to-day,  is  this :  "  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  no 
money  raised  by  taxation  shall  ever  be  granted  or  applied  for 
the  use  of  the  schools  or  institutions  of  any  religious  sect  or 
denomination."  I  am  referring,  of  course,  to  article  eighty- 
two,  which  is  for  the  "  encouragement  of  literature,"  etc.  As 
I  understand  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr. 
Baker,  this  morning,  his  point  is  that  the  existing  proviso 
does  not  include  money  which  may  come  into  the  treasury 
of  the  state  by  means  other  than  by  taxation.  I  think  his 
point  there  may  be  well  taken,  but  the  concrete  question  I 
desire  to  ask  is,  whether  or  not  it  would  not  be  wise  to  strike 
from  his  present  draft  everything  down  to  the  word  "prefer- 
ence," which  covers  this  general  subject  I  am  talking  about, 
and  insert  in  the  present  proviso  of  article  eighty-two,  part 
two,  words  which  will  cover  the  idea,  so  there  shall  not  be 
two  articles  in  the  Constitution  relating  to  the  same  general 
subject,  but  have  it  all  in  one.  My  suggestion  would  be  to 
strike  that  out  of  the  present  draft  submitted  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  commencing  with  line  twenty- 
one  and  ending  with  line  twenty-four,  and  then  carry  the 
non-taxation  and  non-appropriation  phraseology  over  into 
13 


194    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  present  proviso  of  article  eighty-two,  and  insert  it  there 
in  appropriate  language. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — The  purpose  announced  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Littleton  is  exactly  my  purpose.  The  only  differ- 
ence is  the  difference  of  location  in  the  Constitution.  Upon 
that  point  I  have  no  preference  whatsoever.  I  am  perfectly 
willing  that  that  clause  should  be  taken  out  in  my  draft  and 
inserted  as  an  amendment  to  article  eighty-two;  but,  to  my 
mind,  it  is  of  importance  that  the  language  of  section  eighty- 
two  shall  be  enlarged  upon  so  that  there  may  be  no  doubt 
about  what  is  meant  by  that  proviso. 

We  have  a  practical  object  lesson  before  us  to-day.  We 
have  the  Thompson  fund  in  charge  of  the  treasurer  of  the 
state.  It  is  not  money  derived  from  taxation,  but  it  is  money 
that  belongs  to  the  state  and  should  not  be  appropriated  for 
religious  or  denominational  purposes.  Do  you  want  to  leave 
the  Constitution  in  such  form  that  the  Thompson  fund  could 
in  some  hazy  future  be  appropriated  for  the  purpose  of  assist- 
ing any  denomination? 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — As  a  Unitarian,  I  should  like  to 
ask  some  theological  person  whether  or  not  the  word  "  evan- 
gelical "  is  sectarian,  and  if  it  is  sectarian,  why  it  is  sectarian. 
I  confess  to  profound  ignorance  upon  that  point. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — Of  course,  I  see  to  what  com- 
mittee this  is  going,  and  I  am  reminded  by  the  query  of  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  that  it  is  proposed 
to  send  this  theological  question  to  the  committee  of  which  I 
am  chairman,  and  the  result  would  be  that  such  committee 
must  take  the  initiative  in  deciding  this  delicate  question. 
Now  we  are  all  agreed — the  distinguished  gentleman  from 
Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  and  my  distinguished  young  friend  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Mies — as  to  the  phraseology,  provided  we  settle 
upon  the  question  whether  the  word  "  evangelical "  shall 
come  out  and  the  word  "  Christian  "  come  in,  or  whether 
both  shall  be  left  out.  The  point  is,  I  believe,  as  some  think, 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  195 

that  "  evangelical  "  does  not  include  the  Catholic  faith.  The 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Niles,  insists  upon  phraseology 
which  shall  include  the  word  "  Christian  "  which  does  include 
the  Catholic  faith.  The  point  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow, 
Mr.  Baker,  is  that  that  still  leaves  a  certain  class  of  people 
out,  and  excluded  from  the  immunity  which  is  intended,  or 
which  it  is  believed  should  be  extended.  There  is  a  particular 
question  here  that  is  to  be  discussed,  and  why  not  discuss  it 
in  this  committee.  Perhaps  not  now,  but  at  some  time  when 
we  have  a  full  committee.  I  hope  the  motion  that  the  com- 
mittee rise  and  refer  this  subject  directly  to  the  standing 
committee,  of  which  I  am  cjiairman,  will  not  prevail.  Let 
the  question  first  be  decided  here.  The  only  substantial 
question  is  the  one  I  have  stated.  And  that  is  a  question 
eminently  fit  and  proper  to  be  first  decided  here  in  Commit- 
tee of  the  Whole,  and  then  your  standing  committee,  under 
the  advice  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  can  undertake  a 
new  draft  which  shall  meet  the  sense  of  this  body. 

I  do  not  say  it  should  be  discussed  now  if  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Mies,  says  he  is  not  prepared  at  this  time 
to  discuss  it,  or,  that  he  wishes  to  discuss  it  in  a  full  body, 
but  let  it  stay  where  it  is  and  take  the  sense  of  this  body,  and 
then  a  draft  may  be  made  in  a  very  short  time  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  Bill  of  Eights  and  reported  back  to  the  Conven- 
tion. For  these  reasons,  I  hope  that  the  motion  in  its  present 
form  will  not  prevail. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — The  object  sought  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  is  the  same  object  sought 
by  me  in  making  my  motion,  and  that  is  to  bring  this  discus- 
sion before  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  that  we  might  decide 
these  various  questions  raised.  If  it  is  not  the  time  now,  and 
this  Convention  is  not  full  enough,  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Niles,  can  withdraw  his  motion  with  the  privilege 
of  renewing  it  at  some  subsequent  time  when  the  Convention 
goes  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  with  a  larger  number 
of  members  present. 


196     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester — I  move  that  the  committee  now 
rise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again  on  this  mat- 
ter, leaving  as  pending  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Niles. 

(Motion  prevailed.) 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Little  of  Manchester — Mr.  President,  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  has  been  in  session,  and  had  under  consid- 
eration the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  with  reference  to  the  matter  of  striking  out 
article  six  of  the  Bill  of  Eights  and  substituting  an  amend- 
ment to  the  same.  The  committee  has  voted  to  rise,  report 
progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

The  President — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  you  hear 
the  report  of  the  Chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
and  the  request  by  the  committee.  Leave  will  be  granted, 
there  being  no  objection. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  now  move  to  take  from  the 
table  the  resolution  which  I  offered  this  morning,  relating  to 
the  taking  of  a  vote  upon  the  reduction  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives and  the  basis  of  representation. 

(Motion  prevails.) 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — My  principal  motive  in  offering 
the  resolution  was  to  suggest  to  the  Convention  that  it  would 
be  wise  to  decide,  before  separating  to-day,  upon  the  time 
next  week  when  the  question  of  the  reduction  of  the  house 
of  representatives  and  of  fixing  the  basis  of  representation 
shall  be  voted  upon.  It  is  desirable,  as  it  is  the  main  ques- 
tion before  this  Convention,  that  all  the  members  who  can 
shall  be  here,  and  that  result  will  be  best  obtained  by  having 
it  understood  when  next  week  the  vote  is  to  be  taken. 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  197 

I  have  suggested  that  we  should  vote  on  three  propositions. 
First,  the  proposition  to  have  a  house  of  300  members;  second, 
the  proposition  that  the  district  system  be  adopted  (upon 
which,  I  desire  to  say,  its  friends  wish  to  vote),  and  third,  if 
that  proposition  is  voted  down,  then  to  vote  upon  the  num- 
ber necessary  under  the  town  system  for  first  representative, 
and  for  second  representative,  and  so  on.  The  numbers  I 
have  left  blank,  because  when  the  order  is  reached  the  first 
thing  will  be  to  vote  upon  the  filling  of  those  blanks. 

I  am  not  at  all  particular  about  this  order  of  proceeding. 
It  is  the  best  I  can  think  of.  But  I  do  advise  the  Conven- 
tion to  fix  a  time  before  we  adjourn  to-day  for  voting  next 
week  upon  the  size  of  the  house  and  the  basis  of  represen- 
tation, for  I  notice  even  to-day  there  is  not  a  full  attendance. 
I  suppose  no  member  expects  we  shall  vote  to-day. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  would  like  to  ask  through  you,  Mr. 
President,  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  if  he  would  be  will- 
ing to  change  the  words  "three  hundred"  in  the  first  part 
of  his  order,  and  insert  in  lieu  of  that  "  one  hundred  and 
fifty,"  with  the  provision  that  when  we  vote  on  that  number 
if  that  fails  we  add  twenty-five,  and  vote  again,  and  so  on, 
until  the  Convention  agrees  upon  some  figure. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  had  not  the  slightest  idea 
that  the  Convention  would  agree  to  much  less  than  three 
hundred  for  the  size  of  the  house  of  representatives.  I  would 
be  perfectly  willing  to  strike  "  three  hundred "  out,  and 
leave  a  blank  to  be  filled  by  the  Convention,  in  the  same  way 
as  the  others  are  filled.  I  do  not  know  what  the  rule  would 
be,  whether  the  vote  should  be  on  the  largest  number  first 
or  on  the  smallest  number.  I  do  not  know  whether  one 
hundred  and  fifty  would  prevail  over  three  hundred,  or  three 
hundred  over  one  hundred  and  fifty.  I  would  be  willing, 
however,  to  strike  the  words  "  three  hundred  "  out  and  leave 
a  blank. 

President — It  is  the  impression  of  the  chair  that  in 


198     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

putting  the  vote  the  largest  number  should  be  put  first.  If 
the  gentleman  from  Concord  desires  to  strike  out  the  words 
"  three  hundred  "  and  leave  a  blank,  it  can  be  done. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  do.  I  ask  to  modify  my  reso- 
lution by  striking  out  the  words  "  three  hundred "  and 
leaving  a  blank  where  they  now  are.  Then  we  would  have 
three  blanks  to  fill  in.  First,  as  to  the  size  of  the  house  of 
representatives;  second,  the  blank  as  to  the  number  necessary 
for  the  first  representative,  and  third,  the  blank  as  to  the 
number  necessary  for  the  second  representative. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  think  we  are  all  agreed  that  some- 
thing in  the  nature  of  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Concord  should  be  adopted,  but  as  he  puts  the  voting 
on  this  question  off  until  Wednesday,  it  naturally  occurs  to 
the  presiding  officer  what  this  Convention  would  do  in  the 
meantime,  if  it  should  adjourn  to-day  until  Monday,  and 
then  to  Tuesday,  there  being  no  special  orders,  as  I  under- 
stand, for  Tuesday. 

Preceding  Conventions,  as  I  understand  it,  have  ordinarily 
met  on  Monday,  either  at  three  o'clock  in  the  afternoon  or 
half -past  seven  o'clock  in  the  evening.  I  do  not  know  any 
particular  reason  why  we  should  not  have  an  afternoon  and 
an  evening  session  both,  for  we  all  want  to  get  through  with 
the  business  and  get  home,  but  at  the  same  time  do  the  busi- 
ness carefully  and  not  eliminate  discussion.  There  are 
several  matters  that  have  been  referred  to  committees  and 
have  not  been  reported  back  from  those  committees,  which 
matters  could  be  considered  either  to-day  or  Monday.  If  the 
gentleman  from  Concord  will  withdraw  his  motion  for  a 
moment,  I  would  like  to  move  that  when  we  adjourn  to-day 
we  do  so  to  meet  at  3  o'clock  Monday  afternoon. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  am  not  particular  about  the 
time  when  the  Convention  votes  on  this  question.  I  have 
made  my  suggestion,  which  may  be  rejected  or  accepted  by 
the  Convention  and  I  shall  not  be  displeased.  But  what  I 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  199 

do  say  is  that  we  ought  to  know  to-day  when  next  week  we 
shall  cast  those  votes. 

Now  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow  does  not 
determine  that,  but  raises  another  question — whether  we  shall 
meet  here  at  3  o'clock  on  Monday  and  go  on  with  the  business. 
I  am  in  favor  of  that,  and  I  think  the  President  of  the  Con- 
vention will  allow  me  to  state  that  the  suggestion  he  made  to 
the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  and  myself,  was  that  we 
meet  Monday  afternoon  at  3  o'clock  and  go  on  with  this 
subject,  and  get  a  vote  on  Tuesday  instead  of  on  Wednesday. 
I  do  not  see  any  reason  why  we  should  not  have  a  meeting 
Monday  afternoon,  if  the  delegates  are  willing  to  come  here. 

As  to  the  question  of  the  time  when  we  shall  take  the 
vote,  as  I  have  already  said,  I  am  not  particular,  but  one  of 
the  delegates  has  suggested  to  me  that  it  ought  to  be  as  late 
as  Thursday.  I  beg,  however,  to  remind  the  Convention  that 
time  is  rapidly  passing,  and  we  shall  be  obliged  to  be  in  ses- 
sion some  portion  of  the  week  after  next,  I  think,  unless 
there  is  a  great  slaughter  here  of  amendments  next  week,  and 
if  we  are  going  to  do  that  we  had  better  begin  it  on  Monday. 

I  have  no  objection  to  the  gentleman  from  Bow  moving, 
whenever  he  sees  fit,  that  when  we  adjourn  we  adjourn  to 
meet  on  Monday  afternoon,  but  I  think  that  this  other  mo- 
tion can  be  disposed  of  before  that. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — It  was  my  intention  that  the  motion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  would  imme- 
diately follow  the  one  I  made,  and  I  made  it  in  order  to  bring 
it  to  the  attention  of  the  Convention. 

I  now  move  that  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  be  amended  by  striking  out  in 
that  resolution  "  Wednesday  next "  and  that  "  Tuesday  next, 
at  half -past  two  "  be  inserted  in  place  thereof. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — I  hope  that  the  gentleman  from 
Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  will  withdraw  his  amendment.  I  know  it 
is  exceedingly  difficult  to  oblige  every  one  in  a  matter  of  this 


200     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

sort,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the  wiser  way  is  to  give  every 
one  an  opportunity  as  far  as  possible.  There  are  some  of 
our  members,  all  of  whom  want  to  be  here,  and  some  of  whom 
I  know  might  not  be  able  to  be  here  on  Tuesday  and  might 
be  able  to  be  here  Wednesday.  I  do  not  think  anything  can 
suffer  by  delaying  this  matter  until  Wednesday.  If  we  are 
going  to  pass  a  resolution  in  amendment  of  the  Constitution 
that  is  going  to  meet  the  approval  of  the  people,  it  is  going 
to  come  after  very  full  discussion,  expression  of  opinion,  and 
a  compromise  of  all  minds. 

We  must  bear  in  mind  that  we,  members  of  this  Conven- 
tion, are  but  a  small  part  of  the  people,  and  when  this  Con- 
vention decides,  by  a  majority  of  the  members,  that  a  certain 
amendment  for  the  reduction  of  the  house  is  one  that  should 
be  made,  that  vote  here  does  not  represent  a  very  large  per- 
centage of  the  actual  voters  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 
The  only  relevancy  of  this  to  the  question  before  us  is  that  it 
seems  to  me  there  should  be  the  fullest  discussion  about  this 
matter,  and  that  all  may  feel  no  one  has  been  choked  off 
and  every  opportunity  has  been  given  for  a  full,  free,  and 
open  discussion  of  all  sides  of  this  question.  I  further  feel 
that  the  middle  of  the  week,  Wednesday,  would  be  the  best 
day  of  the  week  upon  which  to  take  this  vote.  I  am  quite 
sure  a  larger  attendance  would  greet  the  settlement  of  this 
question  on  Wednesday  afternoon  than  it  would  on  Tuesday 
afternoon,  and  I  trust  that  the  amendment  may  be  withdrawn 
to  substitute  Tuesday  instead  of  Wednesday.  If  it  is  not 
withdrawn,  then  I  hope  the  amendment  will  be  voted  down 
and  that  the  original  motion  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — For  information,  I  wish  to 
inquire  if  there  is  not  a  little  discrepancy  in  the  order  in 
which  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Chandler,  for  the  taking  of  votes  upon  this  question  is  put. 
I  understand  that  the  order  he  suggests  is  that  we  first  vote 
on  the  question  of  reducing  the  house  and  the  number  to 
which  it  should  be  reduced,  and  then  011  the  question  of 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  201 

whether  the  district  system  shall  be  used.  Now  if  the  Con- 
vention adopts  the  district  system,  there  is  no  trouble  in 
fixing  the  size  of  the  house  at  300;  but  if  it  does  not  adopt 
that  system,  it  does  seem  that  any  vote  which  has  been  made 
to  fix  the  size  of  the  house  at  any  exact  number  would  be 
futile.  I  make  this  inquiry,  not  in  any  way  of  objection,  but 
merely  to  suggest  that  the  vote  on  fixing  the  size  of  the  house 
should  come  after  the  vote  on  whether  the  district  system 
should  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — I  would  call  for  the  read- 
ing of  the  order. 

The  President — The  original  order,  submitted  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  is  as  follows: 

1.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of  300  mem- 
bers. 

2.  The  members  of  the  house  of  representatives  shall  be 
elected  under  a  district  system. 

3.  The  number  of  inhabitants  required  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative under  the  town  system  shall  be ,  and  the  num- 
ber required  for  a  second  representative  shall  be . 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — The  gentleman  from  Strat- 
ham,  Mr.  Wingate,  anticipated  the  question  which  I  had  also 
intended  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler. 
It  seems  to  me  if  we  adopt  any  arbitrary  number  of  repre- 
sentatives first,  we  have  then  practically  adopted  the  district 
system,  and  I  would  suggest  that  the  gentleman  change  the 
order  so  that  we  shall  first  vote  on  the  system  which  we  will 
adopt — either  the  town  or  the  district  system — and  then  we 
can  arrange  the  number  of  representatives  to  correspond  with 
the  system  we  have  adopted.  If  we  should  adopt  the  town 
system,  any  of  the  schedules  submitted  will  not  allow  the 
arbitrary  number  of  300  or  250,  or  any  other  number.  It 
may  be  very  near  that  number,  but  it  would  not  be  it  exactly. 
I  will  ask  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  if  he 
insists  on  having  the  votes  in  the  order  in  which  he  has 


202     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

arranged  them,  and  if  he  would  not  permit  the  order  to  be, 
to  vote  upon  the  district  system  first,  and  then  upon  the 
number  of  representatives  that  the  house  shall  consist  of. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  have  no  objection  to  that,  if 
the  Convention  prefers  it,  but  the  original  order  seemed  to 
me  to  be  the  natural  order.  It  seemed  to  me  best  for  the 
Convention  to  say  first  whether  it  wanted  to  reduce  the  house 
of  representatives,  and  if  so,  how  much.  That  is  all  there 
is  in  the  firsfr  question,  Shall  the  house  of  representatives  be 
reduced,  and  if  so,  how  much  shall  it  be  reduced.  When 
the  Convention  has  decided  how  much  it  shall  be  reduced, 
then  the  Convention  can  go  on  and  decide  whether  or  not 
it  will  make  the  reduction  through  the  district  system  or 
under  the  present  town  system.  If  the  latter,  it  would  then 
be  necessary  to  fix  the  number  for  the  first  representative, 
and  the  second  representative,  and  so  forth. 

I  understand  very  well  that  it  appears  from  the  various 
tables  that  have  been  printed,  how  much  it  would  be  neces- 
sary to  have  for  .each  representative  in  order  to  reduce  the 
house  to  about  300  members.  That  is,  every  calculation  that 
has  been  made  and  presented  here  shows  what  the  result 
would  be. 

I,  however,  only  made  the  suggestion  of  this  order,  and 
would  be  entirely  willing  to  have  the  question  whether  we 
should  adopt  the  district  system  voted  upon  first,  it  being 
well  understood  that  the  whole  object  of  this  business  is  to 
reduce  the  house  of  representatives. 

The  gentleman  sitting  beside  me  has  suggested  that  the 
ladies  have  been  given  the  privilege  of  a  hearing  on  Tuesday 
afternoon,  on  the  question  of  woman  suffrage,  or  some  other 
of  the  things  that  the  ladies  desire. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — Do  I  understand  that  the 
gentleman  from  Concord  assents  to  the  change  of  the  order? 

The  President — The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chand- 
ler, assents  to  the  change  of  the  order.  What  shall  be  the 
order  as  changed? 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  203 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — The  second  paragraph  first,  and 
the  first  second. 

Mr.  Fairbanks  of  Cornish — Of  course  the  gentlemen  of 
this  Convention  realize  that  we  are  having  quite  a  storm  in 
Concord,  and  usually  under  the  circumstances  it  is  a  great 
deal  heavier  back  in  the  country,  and  it  may  not  be  possible, 
under  the  present  conditions  of  a  heavy  snow  storm,  to  get 
back  here  as  early  as  Tuesday.  I  think  it  would  be  far  bet- 
ter to  have  the  vote  on  Wednesday,  and  I  hope  the  vote 
with  reference  to  representation  will  not  be  taken  up  before 
Wednesday. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  will  withdraw  my  motion. 

The  President — The  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker, 
withdraws  his  motion  that  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  be  amended  by  substituting 
Tuesday  for  Wednesday.  The  question  recurs  to  the  original 
resolution,  which  is  that  the  order  for  voting  presented  by 
the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  which  has  been 
changed  by  arrangement  so  that  the  second  proposition  is  to 
be  voted  upon  first,  and  the  first  one  second, — that  that  reso- 
lution be  taken  up  and  acted  upon  on  Wednesday  next  at 
12  o'clock.  Is  the  house  ready  for  the  question? 

(Question  is  put  and  motion  prevails.) 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  when  the  Convention  adjourns  it  adjourn 
to  meet  at  3  o'clock  Monday  afternoon,  December  8. 

(Motion  prevailed.) 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene  offered  the  following  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Constitution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  amended  as  follows: 
By  striking  out  articles  nine  and  ten  of  the  second  part  of 
the  Constitution  and  inserting  the  following: 


204     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ART.  *9.  There  shall  be  in  the  legislature  of  this  state  a 
representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  founded  upon 
principles  of  equality  to  consist  of  350  members.  Every 
town  and  city  in  the  state  may  elect  one  representative.  The 
remaining  number  necessary  to  make  up  350  members  shall 
be  apportioned  among  the  different  cities  of  the  state  in  pro- 
portion to  the  population  thereof. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole 
to  be  considered  with  other  amendments  of  a  like  character. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Warner  of  Antrim,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 

AFTEKNOOK 

The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 
Mr.  Clyde  of  Hudson  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  five,  part  second  of  the  Constitution, 
be  hereby  amended  as  follows: 

Provided  also  that  the  people  hereby  reserve  to  themselves 
power  to  propose  laws  and  amendments  to  the  Constitution, 
and  to  enact  or  reject  the  same  at  the  polls,  independent  of 
the  said  general  court,  and  also  reserve  power  at  their  own 
option  to  approve  or  reject  at  the  polls  any  act  of  the  said 
general  court.  The  first  power  reserved  by  the  people  is  the 
initiative,  and  not  more  than  five  per  cent,  of  the  legal  voters 
of  the  state  shall  be  required  to  propose  any  measure  by  such 
petition,  and  every  such  petition  shall  include  the  full  text 
of  the  measure  so  proposed.  Initiative  petitions  shall  be 
filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  not  less  than  four  months 
before  the  election  at  which  they  are  to  be  voted  upon.  The 
second  power  is  the  referendum,  and  it  may  be  ordered 
(except  as  to  laws  necessary  for  the  immediate  preservation 
of  the  public  peace,  health,  or  safety,  support  of  the  state 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  5,  1902.  20/> 

government  and  its  existing  public  institutions),  either  by 
petition,,  signed  by  five  per  cent,  of  the  legal  voters,  or  by 
the  general  court  as  other  bills  are  enacted.  Eeferendum 
petitions  shall  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state  not  more 
than  ninety  days  after  the  final  adjournment  of  the  session 
of  the  legislative  assembly  which  passed  the  bill  on  which  the 
referendum  is  demanded.  The  veto  power  of  the  governor 
shall  not  extend  to  measures  referred  to  the  people.  All 
elections  on  measures  referred  to  the  people  of  the  state  shall 
be  had  at  the  biennial  regular  general  elections,  except  when 
the  general  court  shall  order  a  special  election.  Any  measure- 
referred  to  the  people  shall  take  effect  and  become  the  law 
when  it  is  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  votes  cast  thereon, 
and  not  otherwise.  The  style  of  all  bills  shall  be:  "Be  it 
enacted  by  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire."  This 
section  shall  not  be  construed  to  deprive  any  member  of  the 
general  court  of  the  right  to  introduce  any  measure.  The 
whole  number  of  votes  cast  for  governor  at  the  regular  elec- 
tion last  preceding  the  filing  of  any  petition  for  the  initiative 
or  for  the  referendum  shall  be  the  basis  on  w^hich  the  number 
of  legal  voters  necessary  to  sign  such  petition  shall  be 
counted.  Petitions  and  orders  for  the  initiative  and  for  the 
referendum  shall  be  filed  with  the  secretary  of  state,  and  in 
submitting  the  same  to  the  people  he  and  all  other  officers 
shall  be  guided  by  the  general  laws  and  the  act  submitting 
this  amendment  until  legislation  shall  be  especially  provided 
therefor. 

Authority  is  hereby  given  the  general  court  to  empower 
the  cities  of  the  state  to  apply  the  principles  of  the  initiative 
and  the  referendum  to  the  acts  of  their  legislative  assemblies. 

All  parts  of  the  Constitution  shall  be  construed  in  accord' 
with  this  amendment. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was  laid 
upon  the  table  to  be  printed  and  taken  up  as  a  special  order 
immediately  following  that  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  re- 
lating to  "  Trusts,"  whenever  that  might  be. 


206     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Briggs  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902. 
The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 
1    -       (The  President  in  the  chair.) 

The  reading  of  the  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  begun, 
when,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Barton  of  Newport,  the  further  read- 
ing was  dispensed  with. 

The  President  addressed  the  Convention  as  follows: 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention:  We  have  learned  with 
deep  regret  of  the  decease  of  one  of  the  most  distinguished 
statesmen  of  the  country.  And  it  seems  that  some  recog- 
nition of  that  fact  should  be  taken  by  this  Convention. 

To  that  end  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Hollis, 
offers  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  this  Convention  has  learned  with  profound 
sorrow  of  the  sudden  death  at  .  Washington  of  the  Hon. 
Thomas  B.  Eeed,  who  although  then  a  private  citizen,  has 
been  distinguished  as  a  representative  in  congress  and  speaker 
of  the  national  house  of  representatives.  His  profound  integ- 
rity, his  fearlessness  of  conduct,  and  his  high  character  in 
every  respect,  commanded  wide  admiration,  and  his  death, 
at  the  height  of  his  intellectual  powers,  is  recognized  by  us 
as  a  national  loss. 

The  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted  by  a  rising  vote 
of  the  Convention. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  Committee  on 
Mileage: 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  207 

Mr.  Knight  of  Milford. 
Mr.  Walker  of  Newmarket. 
Mr.  Leighton  of  Dover. 
Mr.  Clarke  of  Center  Harbor. 
Mr.  Hersey  of  Wolfeborough. 
Mr.  Miller  of  Pembroke. 
Mr.  Wright  of  Keene. 
Mr.  Burpee  of  Grantham. 
Mr.  Glazier  of  Landaff. 
Mr.  Bipley  of  Stewartstown. 

The  President  appointed  the  following  Committee  on 
Finance: 

Mr.  Clement  of  Manchester. 

Mr.  Melvin  of  Lyme. 

Mr.  Emery,  S.  P.,  of  Portsmouth. 

Mr.  Nealley  of  Dover. 

Mr.  Pulsifer  of  Laconia. 

Mr.  Hobson  of  Conway. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord. 

Mr.  Davis  of  Winchester. 

Mr.  Ide  of  Croydon. 

Mr.  McKellips  of  Northumberland. 

Mr.  Howe  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  so  amended  that  the 
house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of  250  members,  which 
shall  be  apportioned  by  the  legislature,  at  the  first  session 
after  a  United  States  census,  to  the  several  counties  of  the 
state,  equally,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  according  to  their  popu- 
lation as  ascertained  at  the  next  preceding  United  States 
census.  The  state  board  of  equalization  shall  seasonably, 
after  each  assignment  of  representatives  to  each  county,  pro- 
ceed to  divide  the  counties  into  representative  districts  of 
contiguous  territory,  so  as  to  apportion  the  representatives 
assigned  to  each  county,  equally,  as  nearly  as  may  be,  accord- 


208     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ing  to  the  relative  population  in  the  several  districts  of  each 
county,  and  such  districts  shall  be  so  formed  that  no  town 
or  ward  shall  be  divided  therefor.  Districts  may  be  formed 
for  one  or  more  representatives  as  the  contiguity  of  territory 
or  the  physical  and  social  relations  of  the  towns  or  wards  may 
warrant.  The  superior  court,  at  the  next  term  in  each 
county  after  such  division  of  the  counties  into  representative 
districts,  may,  upon  appeal  by  a  town  or  ward,  or  twenty- 
five  voters  thereof,  examine  the  classification  of  that  town 
or  ward,  and  change  the  district  lines  of  that  county  in 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  article  if  it  shall  appear 
that  injustice  has  been  done.  And  the  supreme  court  may 
review  the  action  of  the  superior  court  as  in  other  cases. 

Keferred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  be  considered  with 
resolutions  of  a  like  character. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  it  was  voted  to 
have  printed  for  the  use  of  the  Convention  the  following 
papers:  A  Eeview  of  Organic  Law  Development,  by  Mr. 
Justice  William  M.  Chase;  Memorandum  by  Mr.  Chandler, 
concerning  the  prohibition  of  Trusts  and  Monopolies  by  the 
Constitutions  and  Laws  of  the  various  states  of  the  Union; 
Memorandum  by  Mr.  Chandler,  concerning  the  prohibition 
of  Free  Passes  on  Eailroads  by  the  Constitutions  and  Laws 
of  the  various  states  of  the  Union. 

A  EEVIEW  OF  OEGANIC  LAW  DEVELOPMENT. 
(By  Mr.  Justice  William  M.  Chase.) 

The  form  of  government  established  by  Great  Britain  for 
the  colony  of  New  Hampshire  came  to  an  end  in  1775.  Gov- 
ernor Wentworth  and  some  of  his  councilors  then  fled  from 
the  colony  and  the  people  were  left  to  govern  themselves. 
A  Convention  convened  in  Exeter  in  May,  composed  of  dele- 
gates from  102  towns  which,  in  accordance  with  the  advice 
of  the  general  congress,  called  a  Convention  to  establish  a 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  209 

iorm  of  government.  It  provided  that  the  electors  of  repre- 
sentatives to  this  Convention  should  possess  real  estate  of, 
at  least,  £20  value, 'and  that  each  candidate  for  representative 
should  possess  real  estate  of  the  value  of  £300;  that  towns 
should  be  entitled  to  one  representative  for  each  group  of 
100  families;  and  that  the  representatives  should  be  empow- 
ered by  their  constituents  to  assume  government  as  recom- 
mended by  the  general  congress.  Bepresentatives  having 
been  chosen  accordingly,  they  met  in  convention  or  congress, 
as  they  termed  it,  at  Exeter,  and,  on  the  5th  day  of  January, 
1776,  adopted  a  plan  of  government  or  .Constitution,  ft  has 
been  asserted  that  Virginia  was  the  first  of  the  colonies  to 
adopt  a  written  Constitution;  but  its  Convention  did  not 
assemble  until  May,  1776,  and  New  Hampshire  is  entitled  to 
that  distinction.  This  Constitution  is  very  brief,  containing 
only  about  900  words,  and  nearly  one  half  of  these  are  in  the 
preamble.  Its  brevity  is  more  apparent  when  it  is  compared 
with  the  present  Constitution,  which  contains  nearly  11,000 
words.  It  deals  with  few  subjects,  and  is  very  general  in  its 
terms.  After  setting  forth  some  of  the  wrongs  the  people 
had  suffered  under  British  rule,  and  noting  the  fact  of  the 
sudden  departure  of  Governor  Wentworth,  and  the  absence 
of  legislative  and  executive  authority  resulting  therefrom, 
the  preamble  continues  as  follows:  "  Therefore  for  the  pres- 
ervation of  peace  and  good  order,  and  for  the  security  of  the 
lives  and  properties  of  the  inhabitants  of  this  colony,  we  con- 
ceive ourselves  reduced  to  the  necessity  of  establishing  a  form 
of  government,  to  continue  during  the  present  unhappy  and 
unnatural  contest  with  Great  Britain,  protesting  and  declar- 
ing that  we  never  sought  to  throw  off  our  dependence  upon 
Great  Britain,  but  felt  ourselves  happy  under  her  -protection 
while  we  could  enjoy  our  Constitutional  rights  and  privileges, 
and  that  we  shall  rejoice  if  such  a  reconciliation  between  us 
and  our  parent  state  can  be  effected  as  shall  be  approved  by 
the  continental  congress,  in  whose  prudence  and  wisdom  we 
confide." 

Its  first   provision   was   in   these   words:     "  Accordingly, 
14 


210    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL*  CONVENTION. 

pursuant  to  the  trust  imposed  in  us,  we  do  resolve  that  this 
congress  assume  the  name,  power  and  authority  of  a  house 
oi  representatives,  or  assembly  for  the  colony  of  New  Hamp- 
shire. And  that  said  house  then  proceed  to  choose  twelve 
persons,  being  reputable  freeholders  and  inhabitants  within 
this  colony,  .  .  .  to  be  a  distinct  and  separate  branch 
of  the  legislature,  by  the  name  of  a  council." 

Its  other  principal  provisions  were  in  substance,  that  no 
act  or  resolve  should  be  valid  unless  passed  by  both  branches 
of  the  legislature;  that  all  bills,  resolves  or  votes  for  raising, 
levying  and  collecting  money  should  originate  in  the  house 
of  representatives;  that  all  civil  officers  of  the  colonies  and 
the  counties,  except  clerks  of  court,  county  treasurers  and 
recorders  of  deeds,  and  all  general  and  field  officers  of  the 
militia  and  all  officers  of  the  army  except  in  cases  of  emer- 
gency, should  be  appointed  by  the  two  houses;  that  the  clerks 
of  court  should  be  appointed  by  the  justices  thereof;  that  a 
county  treasurer  and  recorder  of  deeds  should  be  chosen 
annually  by  the  people  of  each  county;  and  that  precepts 
should  issue  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  November  in  each 
year,  for  the  choice  of  a  council  and  house  of  representatives, 
to  be  returned  by  the  third  Wednesday  in  December  then 
next  ensuing. 

It  will  be  noticed  that  there  was  no  provision  for  separate 
executive  and  judicial  departments  of  government,  and  that 
no  restraints  were  placed  upon  the  council  and  assembly  in 
any  direction.  These  two  bodies  had  full  power  to  exercise 
all  the  legislative,  executive,  and  judicial  functions  of  govern- 
ment. This  was  in  accordance  with  a  theory  of  government 
then  entertained  by  some  of  the  leading  men  of  the  times. 
It  is  said  that  Franklin  and  Samuel  Adams  favored  it;  and 
the  principle  was  adopted  in  the  first  Constitutions  of  Penn- 
sylvania and  Georgia. 

This  Constitution  was  not  submitted  to  the  people;  but,  as 
has  already  been  intimated,  went  into  effect  upon  its  adoption 
by  the  Convention,  the  members  of  which  were  clothed  with 
full  authority  for  the  purpose.  Although  adopted  as  a  tern- 


MONDAY,  DECEMBEE  8,  1902.  211 

porary  measure,  it  continued  in  force  until  the  first  Wednes- 
day of  June,  1784, — a  period  of  nearly  eight  years  and  a  half. 
The  council  and  assembly  while  in  session  exercised  executive 
authority;  and  at  every  adjournment  they  appointed  a  Com- 
mittee of  Safety,  consisting  of  from  six  to  sixteen  persons,  to 
act  during  the  recess.  By  an  act  passed  July  5,  1776,  they 
established  courts  of  law.  They  changed  the  name  from  the 
colony  of  New  Hampshire  to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire, 
September  19;  and  early  in  the  next  year,  to  remove  all 
doubts  on  the  subject,  they  reestablished  the  general  system 
of  laws  that  was  in  force  when  the  Constitution  was  adopted, 
in  so  far  as  the  laws  were  not  repugnant  to  the  provisions  of 
the  Constitution. 

During  the  existence  of  this  Constitution,  the  legislature 
raised  money  by  taxation  and  loans  and  appropriated  it  to 
public  uses,  and  passed  laws  relating  to  marriages,  the  care 
of  paupers,  the  regulation  of  highways,  the  establishment  and 
regulation  of  the  militia,  the  punishment  of  crimes, — in 
short,  acted  upon  all  subjects  that  required  legislative  action. 
The  statutes  so  passed  covered  more  than  300  quarto  printed 
pages.  The  maintenance  of  civil  government  under  a  funda- 
mental law  so  incomplete,  imperfect,  and  weak  as  was  this 
Constitution,  for  so  long  a  period,  during  which  the  stress 
and  demoralization  attending  a  war  of  revolution  existed, 
shows  that  the  people  generally  recognized  and  respected  the 
rights  of  individuals  and  were  able  to  control  their  ambitions 
and  jealousies  for  the  common  good.  Notwithstanding  they 
had  rebelled  against  the  existing  government,  they  were  a  law- 
abiding  people. 

A  second  Constitutional  Convention  was  called  by  a  vote 
of  the  assembly,  February  25,  1778,  and  met  at  Concord, 
June  10.  Nearly  all  of  the  towns  were  represented.  Among 
the  delegates  were  George  Atkinson,  John  Langdon, 
Nathaniel  Folsom,  Matthew  Thornton,  John  Bell,  Timothy 
Walker,  Timothy  Farrar,  and  Joseph  Badger.  Atkinson  was 
the  president.  The  convention  agreed  upon  a  Constitution 
June  5,  1779.  This  contained  a  preamble  referring  to  the 


212    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Declaration  of  Independence,  a  declaration  of  rights  con- 
taining seven  articles,  and  a  plan  of  government  containing 
thirty-two  articles.  The  declaration  of  rights  asserted  the 
independence  of  the  people  from  the  crown  of  Great  Britain, 
their  title  to  life,  liberty,  and  property,  and  to  the  immunities 
and  privileges  theretofore  enjoyed,  and  that  the  entire  power 
of  government  must  be  derived  from  the  people.  It  also 
provided  that  the  common  and  statute  laws  of  England 
adopted  and  used  here  should  continue  in  force;  that  no 
laws  should  be  made  to  infringe  the  rights  of  conscience  or 
any  other  of  the  natural  and  unalienable  rights  of  man,  or 
be  contrary  to  the  laws  of  God,  or  against  the  Protestant 
religion;  that  the  right  of  trial  by  jury  as  theretofore  used 
in  the  state  should  be  preserved  inviolate  forever;  and  that 
the  extent  of  the  territory  of  the  state  should  be  the  same 
as  that  which  was  under  the  government  of  Gov.  John  Went- 
worth,  reserving  the  claim  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire 
grants  on  the  west  side  of  the  Connecticut  river.  The  plan 
of  government  provided  that  the  supreme  power  of  the  state 
should  be  invested  in  a  general  court  composed  of  a  council 
of  twelve  members  and  a  house  of  representatives.  The 
members  of  the  council  and  house  of  representatives  were 
apportioned  among  the  counties  and  towns  substantially  the 
same  as  under  the  temporary  Constitution.  The  president 
of  the  council  was  to  hold  correspondence  with  other  states 
or  persons,  call  the  council  together  whenever  occasion 
required,  and,  with  the  advice  of  three  or  more  members  of 
the  council,  call  the  house  together.  The  other  provisions 
related  to  the  manner  of  conducting  elections,  the  appoint- 
ment of  officers,  and  other  details  of  government.  While 
the  plan  of  government  was  set  forth  more  in  detail  than  in 
the  temporary  Constitution,  it  did  not  differ  in  principle 
from  the  plan  therein  set  up.  This  Constitution  was  rejected 
by  the  people. 

A  third  Convention  was  called  by  the  concurrent  action  of 
the  council  and  assembly,  April  6,  1781.  It  met  in  Concord 
on  the  second  Tuesday  of  June,  and  continued  in  existence 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  213 

until  October  31,  1783,  a  period  of  two  years  and  four 
months.  It  held  seven  sessions  and  submitted  three  drafts 
of  a  Constitution  to  the  people,  the  first  two  of  which  were 
rejected  and  the  last  was  adopted.  The  first  draft,  which 
was  the  basis  of  the  other  two,  was  modeled  after  the  Con- 
stitution adopted  by  the  people  of  Massachusetts  in  1780.  In 
fact,  the  most  of  its  provisions  were  copied  from  that  Con- 
stitution almost  word  for  word.  The  authorship  of  the 
Massachusetts  Constitution  is  therefore  a  matter  of  special 
interest  to  us. 

The  original  draft  of  that  Constitution  was  prepared  by 
John  Adams,  and  but  few  changes  were  made  in  it  prior  to 
its  adoption  by  the  people.  Governor  Bullock,  in  an  address 
before  the  American  Antiquarian  society  in  1881,  said  con- 
cerning Mr.  Adams'  qualification  for  this  work:  "As  con- 
stitutionalist and  publicist,  all  other  men  of  his  day  came  at 
long  intervals  behind  him.  Madison  and  Hamilton  were  a 
development  of  the  ten  years  which  followed  the  full  mani- 
festations of  his  powers.  Beyond  all  of  his  associates  in 
mastery  of  the  whole  subject  of  government,  grasping  and 
applying  the  lessons  of  historical  studies  with  a  prehensile 
power  at  that  time  unprecedented  on  this  continent,  and 
adding  to  them  the  original  conception  of  a  mind  of  the 
highest  order,  he  proved  of  all  his  contemporaries  fittest  for 
Constitutional  architecture.  Having  discerned  five  years  be- 
fore, in  advance  of  everybody,  the  solution  of  independence 
in  directing  the  colonies  to  establish  local  governments,  he 
became  doctrinaire  to  the  delegates  at  Philadelphia.  In  {he 
confusion  and  chaos  of  thought  relating  to  these  subjects 
which  brooded  over  their  minds  his  counsel  was  sought  by 
delegates  from  North  Carolina,  from  Virginia,  from  New 
Jersey,  to  each  of  whose  delegations  he  furnished  formulas 
of  state  government;  and  when  he  came  to  the  front  in  the 
preparation  of  a  Constitution  for  his  own  state,  his  mind 
was  already  stored  for  the  emergency.  His  share  in  framing 
our  own  government,  and  his  subsequent  writings  in  defense 
of  the  general  system  adopted  by  the  American  states,  in 


214    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

refutation  of  the  theories  of  M.  Turgot, — this  defense  being- 
published  just  in  time  to  bear  upon  the  question  of  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States, — furnish  suffi- 
cient excuse,  if,  indeed,  excuse  were  needed,  for  his  boastful 
declaration,  found  in  the  Warren  correspondence 
( I  made  a  Constitution  for  Massachusetts  which  finally  made 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States/  " 

It  certainly  is  not  discreditable  to  the  New  Hampshire 
Convention  that  they  availed  themselves  of  the  fruits  of  this 
masterly  mind. 

The  first  part  of  each  Constitution  prepared  by  this  Con- 
vention consisted  of  a  Bill  of  Eights  containing  thirty-eight 
articles,  and  was  substantially  the  same  in  the  three  drafts. 
The  rights  and  principles  declared  in  it  are  the  fruitage  of 
history.  It  would  be  unnecessary  to  assert  many  of  them  at 
the  present  day  in  a  plan  of  government,  for  they  would  be 
recognized  and  respected  without  such  assertion.  It  wan 
probably  unnecessary  to  declare  some  of  them  at  that  time; 
but,  suffering  as  the  people  of  the  state  and  their  ancestors 
had  from  the  denial  of  rights  which  were  natural  and  inher- 
ent, they  thought  it  prudent  to  guard  them  explicitly  from 
future  encroachment.  They  founded  their  government  on 
the  consent  of  the  governed.  They  recognized  the  fact  that 
in  giving  consent  and  entering  into  government  the  people 
must  surrender  some  of  the  rights  they  might  otherwise 
enjoy,  in  order  to  protect  other;  but  they  attempted  to 
limit  the  surrender  to  the  absolute  requirements  of  the 
change.  Some  of  the  rights  declared  are  traceable  to  the 
great  charter  of  King  John,  granted  in  1215.  Articles  four- 
teen and  fifteen  correspond  with  articles  thirty-nine  and 
forty  of  that  charter,  which  are  as  follows: 

"39.  No  freeman  shall  be  taken  or  imprisoned,  or  dis- 
missed, or  outlawed,  or  banished,  or  any  ways  destroyed,  nor 
will  we  pass  upon  him,  nor  will  send  upon  him,  unless  by  the 
lawful  judgment  of  his  peers,  or  by  the  law  of  the  land. 

"40.  We  will  sell  to  no  man,  we  will  not  deny  to  any 
man,  either  justice  or  right." 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  215 

The  sixth  article,  recognizing  the  dependence  of  the  gov- 
ernment's safety  upon  the  morality  and  piety  of  its  citizens, 
empowered  the  legislature  to  authorize  towns,  parishes,  and 
religious  societies  to  select  and  maintain  Protestant  teachers 
of  piety,  religion,  and  morality,  with  the  limitation  that  no 
person  should  be  compelled  to  contribute  to  the  support  of 
the  teacher  of  a  denomination  or  sect  to  which  he  did  not 
belong,  and  that  all  denominations  and  sects  should  stand 
on  the  same  footing  before  the  law.  This  article  differed 
from  the  corresponding  article  in  the  Massachusetts  Bill  of 
Rights  in  this:  By  the  latter,  the  legislature  was  empowered 
to  require  towns,  etc.,  to  select  and  maintain  such  teachers, 
and  to  enjoin  upon  all  the  subjects  of  the  state  an  attendance 
upon  their  instructions.  Evidently,  Puritanism  did  not  have 
quite  so  strong  a  hold  upon  the  people  of  this  state  as  it  did 
in  the  state  it  had  so  great  a  part 'in  settling  and  founding. 
With  the  exception  of  this  article,  and  the  articles  (seven, 
eighteen,  and  twenty-one)  declaring  the  right  of  the  people 
to  govern  themselves,  the  correspondence  that  should  exist 
between  the  punishment  and  the  nature  of  the  crime  to 
which  it  is  affixed,  and  the  care  that  should  be  taken  in  select- 
ing jurors,  the  Bill  of  Rights  was  substantially  the  same  as 
that  of  the  Massachusetts  Constitution,  although  the  phrase- 
ology and  the  order  of  arrangement  were  in  some  parts 
slightly  changed.  It  included  all  the  declarations  of  the  Bill 
of  Rights  in  the  Constitution  prepared  by  the  prior  Con- 
vention. 

The  principle  on  which  the  plan  of  government  is  con- 
structed in  the  three  drafts  is  the  division  of  the  functions 
of  government  into  three  distinct  departments,  each  inde- 
pendent of  the  others, — 4he  legislative,  the  executive,  and 
the  judicial.  The  details  of  the  plan  are  like  those  of  the 
Massachusetts  Constitution  except  in  a  few  particulars,  mostly 
attributable  to  the  differences  in  the  population  and  other 
circumstances  of  the  two  states.  The  Massachusetts  Consti- 
tution empowers  the  legislature  to  impose  and  levy  reasonable 
duties  and  excises.  This  power  was  never  delegated  to  the 


216    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

legislature  in  this  state.  Nor  did  any  of  the  Convention's 
drafts  provide  for  a  lieutenant-governor,  an  officer  required 
by  the  Massachusetts  Constitution. 

In  all  three  drafts  the  supreme  legislative  power  within 
the  state  was  vested  in  a  senate  consisting  of  twelve  members, 
and  a  house  of  representatives,  each  of  which  had  a  negative 
upon  the  other,  and  both  of  which  were  to  assemble  on  the 
first  Wednesday  of  June  in  each  year.  The  principal  differ- 
ence in  the  provisions  of  the  three  on  this  subject  related  to 
the  number  of  members  in  the  house  of  representatives.  By 
the  first  draft  the  number  was  fixed  at  fifty,  to  be  chosen  by 
county  conventions  composed  of  delegates  elected  by  the 
towns, — they  being  entitled  to  one  delegate  for  every  fifty 
ratable  polls  in  the  town.  By  the  other  two,  towns  were 
entitled  to  one  representative  if  they  had  150  ratable  polls, 
two  representatives  if  they  had  450,  and  one  additional  repre- 
sentative for  each  additional  number  of  300  polls.  If  they 
had  less  than  150  ratable  polls  they  were  to  be  classed.  This 
made  the  number  of  members  variable,  increasing  as  the 
population  increased. 

The  supreme  executive  power  was  lodged  in  an  officer 
entitled  "  governor  "  in  the  first  two  drafts,  and  "  president " 
in  the  last.  The  veto  power  was  conferred  upon  him  in  the 
first  two  drafts,  but  was  withheld  in  the  last.  The  follow- 
ing curious  provision  appears  in  the  second  draft:  "  To  pre- 
vent an  undue  influence  in  this  state,  which  the  first  magis- 
trate thereof  may  acquire  by  the  long  possession  of  the  im- 
portant powers  and  trusts  of  that  office,  as  also  to  stimulate 
others  to  qualify  themselves  for  the  service  of  the  public  in 
the  highest  stations,  no  man  shall  be  eligible  as  governor  of 
this  state  more  than  three  years  in*  any  seven."  The  neces- 
sity for  a  stimulus  of  this  kind  has  long  since  ceased,  if  in- 
deed it  was  then  required.  By  the  last  draft,  the  governor, 
or,  as  the  officer  was  then  named,  the  president,  was  to  pre- 
side in  the  senate,  and  had  the  same  right  to  vote  therein  as 
the  senators  had.  Appointments  to  office  were  made  by  the 
president  and  council,  instead  of  by  the  president  with  the 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  217 

advice  of  the  council.  The  members  of  the  council  were 
chosen  by  the  legislature  by  joint  ballot,  two  of  them  from 
members  of  the  senate,  and  three  from  members  of  the  house. 

The  judicial  powers  and  duties  were  alike  in  the  three 
drafts.  The  tenure  of  office  of  judicial  officers  was  during 
good  behavior,  but  they  were  subject  to  removal  by  the  gov- 
ernor and  council  upon  address  by  both  houses  of  the  legis- 
lature. 

Among  the  other  provisions  were  the  requirement  in  the 
first  one  of  a  property  qualification  to  entitle  one  to  vote, — 
the  having  of  an  estate  of  £100, — and  the  requirement  in  all 
that  persons  to  be  eligible  to  the  office  of  governor,  senator, 
•and  representative  must  be  of  the  Protestant  religion,  and 
must  be  seized  of  an  estate  of  a  certain  value.  In  the  first 
draft  the  value  was  £1,000  for  the  office  of  governor,  £400  for 
the  office  of  senator,  and  £200  for  the  office  of  representative; 
and  in  the  other  two,  the  values  were  one  half  these  sums. 
All  three  drafts  provided  that  the  senate  and  house  of  repre- 
sentatives should  elect  delegates  to  congress  to  serve  for  one 
year.  They  also  contained  a  provision  making  it  the  duty 
•of  legislators  and  magistrates  to  cherish  the  interest  of  litera- 
ture and  the  sciences  and  all  seminaries  and  public  schools, 
to  countenance  and  inculcate  the  principles  of  humanity  and 
general  benevolence,  public  and  private  charity,  industry  and 
economy,  honesty  and  punctuality  in  dealings,  sincerity,  so- 
briety, and  all  social  affections  and  generous  sentiments 
^mong  the  people. 

The  last  draft  submitted  by  this  Convention  was  approved 
by  the  people  in  1783,  and  went  into  effect  on  the  first  Wed- 
nesday of  June,  1784.  It  has  been  amended  from  time  to 
time  in  certain  particulars,  and,  as  amended,  is  still  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  state.  People  sometimes  speak  of  "  the  Con- 
stitution of  1792,"  but  a  new  Constitution  was  not  adopted 
in  that  year,  and  the  designation  is  a  misnomer.  The  state 
has  had  only  two  Constitutions,  that  of  1776  and  that  of 
1783. 

A  Convention  for  revising  the  Constitution  duly  called, 


218    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

assembled  at  Concord,  September  7,  1791,  and  adjourned 
from  time  to  time  until  September  5,  1792,  when  it  dissolved. 
This  Convention  first  submitted  to  the  people  seventy-two 
amendments,  forty-six  of  which  were  approved;  but  as  some 
of  these  were  so  connected  with  others  that  were  rejected,  it 
became  necessary  to  submit  further  amendments  to  make  the 
provisions  consistent  with  each  other.  The  amendments  last 
submitted  were  approved.  The  principal  changes  affected 
by  these  amendments  were  the  substitution  of  "  governor  " 
for  "  president "  in  the  title  of  His  Excellency;  the  taking 
away  of  the  governor's  right  to  sit  and  vote  in  the  senate; 
the  grant  to  him  of  authority  to  veto  bills  and  resolves  passed 
by  the  legislature;  the  substitution  of  a  council  consisting  of 
five  members  elected  by  the  inhabitants  divided  into  council- 
or districts,  in  the  place  of  the  former  council  elected  by  the 
legislature;  the  limitation  of  the  tenure  of  office  of  judges 
and  sheriffs  to  the  time  when  they  shall  attain  the  age  of 
seventy  years;  the  substitution  in  the  qualification  of  voters 
of  the  fact  that  the  inhabitant  is  not  a  pauper  or  excused  at 
his  own  request  from  paying  taxes,  for  the  former  require- 
ment that  he  should  pay  a  poll  tax;  the  grant  of  power  to 
the  legislature  to  give  justices  of  the  peace  jurisdiction  in 
civil  causes  in  which  the  damages  demanded  do  not  exceed 
four  pounds,  and  the  title  to  real  estate  is  not  concerned;  the 
introduction  of  a  provision  for  dividing  a  county  into  two 
districts  for  registering  deeds;  and  the  abolition  of  the  pro- 
vision for  electing  delegates  to  congress.  Among  the  amend- 
ments rejected  there  was  one  for  changing  the  time  of  the 
sessions  of  the  legislature  to  the  last  Wednesday  of  October, 
and  one  for  changing  the  number  of  members  of  the  senate 
to  thirteen. 

Nearly  sixty  years  elapsed  before  another  Constitutional 
Convention  was  held, — that  of  1850, — which  assembled  at 
Concord,  November  6.  Of  this  Convention  Franklin  Pierce 
was  president  and  Col.  Thomas  J.  Whipple  was  secretary. 
It  proposed  many  radical  changes,  among  which  were:  the 
adoption  of  biennial  elections  and  biennial  sessions  of  the- 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  219 

legislature;  the  increase  of  the  senate  to  thirty  members,  to 
be  elected  by  fifteen  districts;  the  creation  of  the  office  of 
lieutenant-governor;  the  abolition  of  the  council;  the  election 
by  the  people  of  secretary  of  state,  treasurer,  judges  of  the 
supreme,  county,  police,  and  probate  courts,  attorney-general, 
railroad  commissioners,  superintendent  of  schools,  and  com- 
missioner of  agriculture;  the  limitation  of  the  tenure  of  office 
of  judges  of  the  supreme  court  to  six  years;  and  the  require- 
ment that  a  sum  not  less  than  $125  for  every  dollar  of  state 
taxes  should  be  assessed  and  collected  each  year  for  the  sup- 
port of  free  common  schools.  All  the  amendments  upon 
these  subjects  were  rejected  by  the  people  by  votes  varying 
from  the  ratio  of  nearly  two  to  one  to  that  of  five  to  one. 
This  Convention  later  submitted  three  amendments, — one 
abolishing  the  religious  test,  one  abolishing  the  property 
qualification  of  persons  for  election  to  the  office  of  governor, 
senator,  and  member  of  the  house,  and  one  as  to  future 
amendments.  The  one  relating  to  the  property  qualification 
only,  was  approved. 

me  fifth  Convention  assembled  at  Concord,  December  6, 
1876,  and  was  in  session  11  days.  Daniel  Clark  presided  over 
it.  It  submitted  thirteen  propositions  to  the  people,  all  of 
which  were  approved  save  two.  The  results  were  the  aboli- 
tion of  the  religious  test  as  a  qualification  for  office;  the 
adoption  of  biennial  elections  and  biennial  sessions  of  the 
legislature;  the  change  of  the  time  of  holding  state  elections 
from  March  to  November;  the  increase  of  the  senate  to 
twenty-four  members;  a  substantial  reduction  in  the  member- 
ship of  the  house;  the  grant  of  authority  to  the  general  court 
to  provide  for  the  trial  of  appeals  from  justices  of  the  peace 
and  of  causes  in  which  the  value  in  controversy  does  not 
exceed  $100  and  title  to  real  estate  is  not  concerned,  with- 
out the  intervention  of  a  jury,  and  also  authority  to  increase 
the  jurisdiction  of  justices  of  the  peace  to  $100;  the  election 
of  registers  of  probate,  solicitors,  and  sheriffs  by  the  people; 
and  the  prohibiting  of  the  legislature  from  authorizing  towns 
to  loan  or  give  their  money  or  credit  to  corporations. 


220     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  sixth,  and  last  Convention  began  its  deliberations 
January  2,  1889,,  and  adjourned  January  12.  Charles  H. 
Bell  was  its  president.  It  submitted  seven  amendments,  all 
of  which  were  approved  save  one.  These  amendments  made 
the  sixth  article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  non-sectarian,  changed 
the  time  of  the  biennial  sessions  of  the  legislature  from  June 
to  January,  adopted  a  fixed  salary  for  members  of  the  legis- 
lature, authorized  the  speaker  of  the  house  of  representatives 
to  act  as  governor  in  case  of  vacancies  in  the  offices  of  gover- 
nor and  president  of  the  senate,  provided  for  filling  vacancies 
in  the  senate  by  a  new  election,  and  made  a  change  in  the 
Tepresentation  of  classed  towns.  The  rejected  proposition 
was  the  insertion  of  an  article  prohibiting  the  manufacture 
or  sale,  or  keeping  for  sale,  of  alcoholic  or  intoxicating  liquors 
as  a  beverage.  It  was  rejected  by  a  vote  of  30,976  as  against 
25,786.  Apparently  the  majority  against  such  a  proposition 
ivould  be  much  larger  now. 

It  is  apparent  to  all  who  think  upon  the  subject  that  there 
.are  still  serious  defects  in  our  Constitution.  The  one  which 
attracts  the  most  attention  and  which  has  been  the  main 
inducing  cause  of  the  previous  attempts  to  amend  it,  is  the 
basis  of  representation  in  the  house  of  representatives.  There 
are  very  few  citizens  that  do  not  feel  that  the  house  is  too 
large  to  secure  the  best  quality  of  membership  and  the  best 
results  of  deliberation.  As  has  been  said,  in  the  first  draft 
•of  the  Constitution  prepared  by  the  Convention  of  1781-'83, 
the  number  was  fixed  at  fifty.  Perhaps  this  number  was  too 
small  then,  and  it  would  be  too  small  now.  The  method  of 
selection  also  was  objectionable,  because  of  its  complication 
and  cumbersomeness.  The  effort  made  in  the  plan  finally 
adopted  to  give  each  of  the  smaller  towns  a  representative — 
an  effort  that  has  been  repeated  in  later  Conventions  when 
the  subject  has  been  considered — is  the  principal  cause  of  .the 
existing  defect.  Viewing  the  question  from  the  standpoint 
-of  justice,  if  600  inhabitants  ought  to  have  one  representative, 
1,200  ought  to  have  two,  and  so  on.  But  the  adoption  of 
such  a  rule  in  connection  with  town  representation  would 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  221 

make  the  house  unwieldly,  and  hence  it  became  necessary  to- 
give  the  larger  towns  a  less  representation  relatively  than  is 
given  to  the  smaller  towns.  Under  the  present  provision,. 
Bow  with  a  population  of  617  is  entitled  to  one  represen- 
tative, while  Ward  five  in  Concord,  with  a  population  of 
2,609 — more  than  four  times  that  of  Bow — is  entitled  to  only 
two — the  mean  increasing  number  of  inhabitants  for  each 
additional  representative  above  one  being  1,200.  This  in- 
equality cannot  be  removed  until  the  people  are  ready  to 
ignore  town  lines  in  fixing  the  basis  of  representation.  Mass- 
achusetts has  done  this,  limiting  the  number  of  members  of 
the  house  to  240,  and  providing  that  they  shall  be  appor- 
tioned among  districts  so  as  to  approximate  equality  of  repre- 
sentation. This  state  will  probably  sometime  again  imitate- 
the  action  of  Massachusetts  by  adopting  a  similar  basis  of 
representation,  but  the  people  are  not  ready  for  it  yet.  Their 
attachment  to  their  respective  towns  and  the  ambition  of 
individuals  to  be  representatives  are  too  strong  to  allow  such 
a  change  to  be  made.  All  that  can  now  be  hoped  for  is  the 
adoption  of  some  compromise  basis  that  will  reduce  the  Jiouse 
to  a  number  which  can  be  reasonably  accommodated  in  the 
representatives'  hall. 

I  am  inclined  to  think  that  the  change  introduced  by  the 
Convention  of  1876,  making  the  offices  of  register  of  probate, 
county  solicitor,  and  sheriff  elective  instead  of  appointive  was 
a  step  backwards.  The  incumbents  of  these  offices  should 
be  selected  with  care,  and  the  selection  should  depend  upon 
their  qualification,  inclination,  and  fitness  to  perform 
the  duties  of  the  office.  It  is  doubtful,  to  say  the  least,  if 
the  Convention  of  a  political  party,  influenced  as  it  is  so 
liable  to  be  by  the  efforts  of  individuals  seeking  office,  and 
by  considerations  of  partisan  policy,  should  be  entrusted  with 
making  the  selection  of  such  officers. 

But  these  are  minor  defects,  comparatively  speaking.  They 
do  not  threaten  the  stability  of  government.  They  relate 
to  forms,  rather  than  substance.  There  are  questions  of  far 
greater  moment  awaiting  solution, — questions  as  to  the  rela- 


222    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

tion  between  capital  and  labor;  the  restraint  of  power  arising 
from  the  accumulation  of  great  wealth,  whether  by  corpora- 
tions or  individuals;  the  prevention  of  monopolies  and  the 
stimulation  and  regulation  of  competition  among  producers 
and  manufacturers  so  that  all  may  enjoy  equality  of  privilege; 
the  raising  of  money  for  public  uses  so  that  the  burden  shall 
be  distributed  equitably  among  the  inhabitants;  the  preven- 
tion of  extravagance  in  the  expenditure  of  the  public  moneys, 
and  many  other  subjects. 

Such  was  the  immediate  origin  of  our  Constitution;  such 
has  been  its  development;  and  such  are  some  of  its  defects. 
As  has  been  intimated,  the  ultimate  discovery  of  some  of 
the  principles  on  which  it  is  founded  occurred  many  cen- 
turies ago.  Indeed,  it  would  be  difficult  to  trace  them  back 
to  the  time  of  their  first  recognition, — they  have  been  so 
slowly  and  imperceptibly  evolved  from  the  experiences  of 
man  as  he  has  laboriously  made  his  way  from  a  state  of  bar- 
barism to  his  present  state  of  civilization.  And  even  now 
the  end  has  not  been  reached.  The  millennium  is  still  far 
distant.  There  is  opportunity  and  necessity  for  study  and 
efforts  by  this  and  many  future  generations  to  improve  tem- 
poral government.  The  results  will  depend  largely  upon  the 
education  and  moral  sense  of  the  community.  The  church 
and  the  schools  are  the  most  effective  institutions  in  the  great 
work.  When  knowledge  and  learning,  in  a  large  and  broad 
sense,  have  become  generally  diffused  through  the  com- 
munity, and  the  moral  sense  of  its  members  has  become  sensi- 
tive to  the  requirements  of  the  Golden  Eule  and  causes  will- 
ing compliance  therewith,  most  of  the  defects  in  government 
will  cease,  and  the  dawn  of  the  millennium  will  be  reached. 
If  Christ  does  not  then  rule  in  person,  His  spirit  will  govern 
the  civil  as  well  as  the  spiritual  relations  of  mankind. 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  223 

MEMORANDUM  PRESENTED  BY  MR,  CHANDLER  OF 
CONCORD,  CONCERNING  THE  PROHIBITION  OF 
TRUSTS  AND  MONOPOLIES  BY  THE  CONSTITU- 
TIONS AND  LAWS  OF  THE  VARIOUS  STATES  OF 
THE  UNION. 

Alabama — The  laws  of  1883,  page  152,  prohibit  the  pooling 
of  freights  by  railroads  "  whereby  trade  is  restrained  by  the 
establishment  of  extortionate  rates  and  the  prevention  of 
free  competition/7 

By  the  act  of  February  18,  1897,  combinations  by  insurers 
to  raise  rates  of  insurance  are  forbidden. 

Arkansas — The  laws  of  1897,  article  forty-six,  and  the  laws 
of  1899,  article  forty-one,  prohibit  combinations  of  trusts 
and  corporations,  and  provide  for  the  punishment  of  pools, 
trusts,  and  conspiracies  to  control  prices. 
California — None. 
Colorado — None. 
Connecticut — None. 
Delaware — None. 
Florida — None. 

Georgia — The  act  of  December  23,  1896,  has  the  following 
title: 

An  act  to  declare  unlawful  and  void  all  arrangements,  con- 
tracts, agreements,  trusts,  or  combinations  made  with  a  view 
to  lessen,  or  which  tend  to  lessen,  free  competition  in  the 
importation  or  sale  of  articles  imported  into  this  state,  or  in 
the  manufacture  or  sale  of  articles  of  domestic  growth  or  of 
domestic  raw  material;  to  declare  unlawful  and  void  all 
arrangements,  contracts,  agreements,  trusts,  or  combinations 
between  persons  or  corporations,  designed,  or  which  tend  to 
advance,  reduce  or  control  the  price  of  such  product  or  article 
to  producer  or  consumer  of  any  such  product  or  article;  to 
provide  for  forfeiture  of  the  charter  and  franchise  of  any 
corporation  organized  under  the  laws  of  this  state,  violating 
any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act;  to  prohibit  every  foreign  cor- 


224    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

poration  violating  any  of  the  provisions  of  this  act  from  doing 
business  in  this  state;  to  require  the  attorney-general  of  this 
state  to  institute  legal  proceedings  against  any  such  corpora- 
tions violating  the  provisions  of  this  act,  and  to  enforce  the 
penalties  prescribed;  to  prescribe  penalties  for  any  violation 
of  this  act;  to  authorize  any  person  or  corporation  damaged: 
by  any  such  trust,  agreement,  or  combination,  to  sue  for  the 
recovery  of  such  damage,  and  for  other  purposes. 

Idaho — Constitutional  provision:  Article  eleven,  section 
eighteen.  No  incorporated  company,  or  any  association  of 
persons  or  stock  company,  in  the  state  of  Idaho,  shall  directly 
or  indirectly  combine  or  make  any  contract  with  any  other 
incorporated  company,  foreign  or  domestic,  through  their 
stockholders  or  the  trustees  or  assignees  of  such  stockholders, 
or  in  any  manner  whatsoever,  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the 
price  or  regulating  the  production  of  any  article  of  commerce 
or  of  produce  of  the  soil,  or  of  consumption  by  the  people;. 
and  that  the  legislature  be  required  to  pass  laws  for  the 
enforcement  thereof,  by  adequate  penalties,  to  the  extent,  if 
necessary  for  that  purpose,  of  the  forfeiture  of  their  property 
and  franchise. 

[Adopted  August  6,  1889.] 

Illinois — By  law  of  June  11,  1891,  and  law  of  June  20, 
1893,  pools,  trusts,  combines,  and  conspiracies  against  trade 
are  prohibited. 

Indiana— By  law  of  1897,  chapter  104,  and  law  of  1899, 
chapter  148,  trusts  or  combinations  to  lessen  free  competition^ 
or  to  control  the  price  of  products,  are  prohibited. 

Iowa— By  the  code  of  1897,  sections  5060  to  5067,  combi- 
nations to  regulate  or  fix  prices,  or  to  lessen  production -or 
manufacture,  are  prohibited. 

Kansas — By  law  of  March  5,  1887,  combinations  to  fix  the 
price  of  grain  or  animals  are  forbidden,  and  by  acts  of  March 
2,  1889,  March  8,  1897,  and  March  4,  1899,  trusts  and  combi- 
nations in  restraint  of  trade  and  production  are  forbidden 
and  punished. 

Kentucky— By  act  of  May  20,  1890,  pools,  trusts,  and  con- 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  225 

spiracles  for  fixing  prices  or  limiting  production  are  for- 
bidden and  punished. 

The  Constitution  of  Kentucky  contains  the  following  sec- 
tion: 

198.  Trusts  and  combinations  to  be  suppressed.  It  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  general  assembly  from  time  to  time,  as 
necessity  may  require,  to  enact  such  laws  as  may  be  necessary 
to  prevent  all  trusts,  pools,  combinations  or  other  organi- 
zations from  combining  to  depreciate  below  its  real  value 
any  article,  or  to  enhance  the  cost  of  any  article  above  its 
real  value. 

Louisiana — The  Constitution,  article  190,  provides  that  it 
shall  be  unlawful  for  persons  or  corporations,  or  their  legal 
representatives,  to  combine  or  conspire  together,  or  to  unite 
or  pool  their  interests  for  the  purpose  of  forcing  up  or  down 
the  price  of  any  agricultural  product  or  article  of  necessity, 
for  speculative  purposes;  and  the  legislature  shall  pass  laws 
to  suppress  it. 

Maine — Chapter  266,  Session  Laws  of  1889,  prohibits 
trusts  and  combinations  that  are  contrary  to  public  policy. 

Maryland — None. 

Massachusetts — None. 

Michigan — The  law  of  July  1,  1889,  act  225,  and  the  law 
of  September  22,  1899,  prohibit  and  punish  combinations  to 
limit  production,  prevent  competition,  or  fix  prices. 

Minnesota — The  law  of  April  20,  1891,  chapter  99,  and 
the  law  of  April  21,  1899,  chapter  359,  prohibit  and  punish 
trusts  to  control  prices  or  production,  or  to  destroy  compe- 
tition. 

Mississippi — The  code  of  February  22,  1890,  chapter  140, 
prohibits  and  punishes  trusts  and  combines  to  affect  prices 
or  production  or  to  hinder  competition. 

The  Constitution,  section  198,  is  as  follows: 

The  legislature  shall  enact  laws  to  prevent  all  trusts,  com- 
binations, contracts,  and  agreements,  inimical  to  the  public 
welfare. 

[Adopted  November  1,  1890.] 
15 


226     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Missouri — Pools,  trusts,  and  conspiracies  to  control  prices 
are  prohibited  and  punished  by  the  statutes  of  1899,  chapter 
128,  and  by  the  laws  of  May  10,  1899,  May  4,  1899,  another 
of  May  4,  1899,  and  of  May  23,  1899. 

Montana — The  statutes  of  1895,  section  321  of  the  penal 
code,  prohibit  trusts. 

The  Constitution,  section  20,  article  15,  adopted  August 
17,  1889,  is  as  follows: 

No  incorporation,  stock  company,  person  or  association  of 
persons  in  the  state  of  Montana,  shall  directly  or  indirectly 
combine  or  form  what  is  known  as  a  trust,  or  make  any  con- 
tract with  any  person,  or  persons,  corporation  or  stock  com- 
pany, foreign  or  domestic,  through  their  stockholders,  trus- 
tees, or  in  any  manner  whatever,  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the 
price,  or  regulating  the  production  of  any  article  of  com- 
merce, or  of  the  product  of  the  soil,  for  consumption  by  the 
people.  The  legislative  assembly  shall  pass  laws  for  the 
enforcement  thereof  by  adequate  penalties  to  the  extent,  if 
necessary  for  that  purpose,  of  the  forfeiture  of  their  prop- 
erty and  franchises,  and  in  case  of  foreign  corporations  pro- 
hibiting them  from  carrying  on  business  in  the  state. 

Nebraska — Trusts  and  conspiracies  against  trade  and  busi- 
ness intended  to  fix  prices,  production,  or  prevent  competi- 
tion, are  prohibited  by  the  laws  of  1897,  chapters  seventy- 
nine,  eighty,  and  eighty-one. 

Nevada — None. 

New  Hampshire — None. 

New  Jersey — None. 

New  York — Monopolies  whereby  competition  in  the  supply 
or  price  of  commodities  is  restrained  are  prohibited  by  the 
law  of  1897,  chapter  384,  and  by  the  law  of  May  25,  1899. 
chapter  690. 

North  Carolina — Constitutional  provision — "  Perpetuities 
and  monopolies  are  contrary  to  the  genius  of  a  free  state  and 
ought  not  to  be  allowed."  Article  one,  section  thirtj^-one. 

Statutes.  Law  of  March  11,  1889,  chapter  374,  law  of 
March  8,  1899,  chapter  666. 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  227 

North  Dakota — Coi>stitutional  provision,  article  seven, 
Section  146.  Any  combination  between  individuals,  corpora- 
tions, associations  or  either,  having  for  its  object  or  effect 
the  controlling  of  the  price  of  any  product  of  the  soil  or  any 
article  of  manufacture  or  commerce,  or  the  cost  of  exchange 
or  transportation,  is  prohibited  and  hereby  declared  unlaw- 
ful and  against  public  policy;  and  any  and  all  franchises  here- 
tofore granted  or  extended,  or  that  may  hereafter  be  granted 
or  extended  in  this  state,  whenever  the  owner  or  owners 
thereof  violate  this  article,  shall  be  deemed  annulled  and  be- 
come void. 

[Adopted  October  1,  1889.] 

The  statutes  of  North  Dakota  punish  trusts  and  combi- 
nations. Revised  codes,  chapter  one;  law  of  March  9,  1897, 
chapter  141. 

Ohio — The  law  of  April  19,  1898,  defines  trusts  and  pun- 
ishes corporations  and  persons  connected  with  trusts  and 
requires  free  competition  in  commerce  and  all  classes  of 
business  in  the  state. 

Oregon — None. 

Pennsylvania — None. 

Rhode  Island — None. 

South  Carolina— The  law  of  February  25,  1897,  prohibits 
trusts  and  combinations  and  provides  penalties.  The  Con- 
stitution contains  the  following: 

Article  nine,  section  thirteen.  The  general  assembly  shall 
enact  laws  to  prevent  all  trusts,  combinations,  contracts,  and 
agreements  against  the  public  welfare;  and  to  prevent  abuses, 
unjust  discriminations,  and  extortion  in  all  charges  of  trans- 
porting and  transmitting  companies;  and  shall  pass  laws  for 
the  supervision  and  regulation  of  such  companies  by  commis- 
sion or  otherwise,  and  shall  provide  adequate  penalties,  to 
the  extent,  if  necessary  for  that  purpose,  of  forfeiture  of  their 
franchises. 

[Adopted  December  4,  1895.] 

South  Dakota — Punishes  combinations  and  trusts  by  laws 
of  March  7,  1890,  and  March  1,  1897. 


228    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  Constitution  contains  the  following: 

SECT.  20.  Monopolies  and  trusts  shall  never  be  allowed  in 
this  state  and  no  incorporate'd  company,  co-partnership,  or 
association  of  persons  in  this  state  shall  directly  or  indirectly 
combine  or  make  any  contract  with  any  incorporated  com- 
pany, foreign  or  domestic,  through  their  stockholders  or 
trustees  or  assigns  of  such  stockholders  or  with  any  co-part- 
nership or  association  of  persons,  or  in  any  manner  whatever 
to  fix  the  prices,  limit  the  production  or  regulate  the  trans- 
portation of  any  product  or  commodity  so  as  to  prevent  com- 
petition in  such  prices,,  production  or  transportation  or  to 
establish  excessive  prices  therefor. 

The  legislature  shall  pass  laws  for  the  enforcement  of  this 
section  by  adequate  penalties,  and  in  the  case  of  incorporated 
companies,  if  necessary  for  that  purpose  may,  as  a  penalty, 
declare  a  forfeiture  of  their  franchises. 

Tennessee— The  laws  of  April  6,  1889,  March  30,  1891, 
April  30,  1897,  and  another  law  of  April  30,  1897,  prohibit 
and  punish  trusts  and  monopolies  "  as  destructive  of  full  and 
free  competition  and  a  conspiracy  against  trade/' 

The  Constitution  contains  the  following: 

Article  one,  section  twenty-two.  Perpetuities  and  monop- 
olies are  contrary  to  the  genius  of  a  free  state,  and  shall  not 
be  allowed. 

[Adopted  February  23,  1870.] 

Texas — Constitutional  provision. 

SECT.  2G.  Perpetuities  and  monopolies  are  contrary  to  the 
genius  of  a  free  government,  and  shall  never  be  allowed. 

.The  anti-trust  laws  are  April  30,  1895,  chapter  83;  May  25, 
1899,  chapter  146. 

Utah — Statutes  against  pools  and  trusts,  1898,  title  54. 

Constitutional  provision,  article  twelve,  section  twenty. 
Any  combination  by  individuals,  corporations,  or  associations, 
having  for  its  object  or  effect  the  controlling  of  the  price  of 
any  products  of  the  soil,  or  of  any  article  of  manufacture  or 
commerce,  or  the  cost  of  exchange  or  transportation,  is  pro- 
hibited, and  hereby  declared  unlawful,  and  against  public 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  229 

policy.  The  legislature  shall  pass  laws  for  the  enforcement 
of  this  section  by  adequate  penalties,  and  in  case  of  incor- 
porated companies,  if  necessary  for  that  purpose,  it  may  de- 
clare a  forfeiture  of  their  franchise. 

[Adopted  May  8,  1895.] 

Vermont — None. 

Virginia — Constitution,  article  twelve,  section  165.  The 
general  assembly  shall  enact  laws  preventing  all  trusts,  com- 
binations, and  monopolies  inimical  to  the  public  welfare. 

Washington — Constitutional  provision,  article  twelve,  sec- 
tion twenty-two.  Monopolies  and  trusts  shall  never  be 
allowed  in  this  state,  and  no  incorporated  company,  co-part- 
nership, or  association  of  persons  in  this  state  shall  directly 
or  indirectly  combine  or  make  any  contract  with  any  other 
incorporated  company,  foreign  or  domestic,  through  their 
stockholders,  or  the  trustees,  or  assignees  of  such  stockhold- 
ers, or  with  any  co-partnership  or  association  of  persons,  or 
in  any  manner  whatever,  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  the  price 
or  limiting  the  production  or  regulating  the  transportation  of 
any  product  or  commodity.  The  legislature  shall  pass  laws 
for  the  enforcement  of  this  section  by  adequate  penalties,  and 
in  case  of  incorporated  companies,  if  necessary  for  that  pur- 
pose, may  declare  a  forfeiture  of  their  franchise. 

[Adopted,  1899.] 

West  Virginia — None. 

Wisconsin — The  statutes  against  trusts  and  monopolies 
intended  to  restrain  or  prevent  competition,  or  control  prices, 
or  limit  production  are  the  laws  of  April  17,  1893,  chapter 
219,  and  of  April  27,  1897,  chapter  357. 

Wyoming — None. 

SUMMARY. 

Prohibited  by  Constitution  in  states 14 

Prohibited  by  statute  in  states 25 

Prohibited  by  both  Constitution  and  statute  in  states 10 

Not  prohibited  in  states 16 


230    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

MEMORANDUM  PRESENTED  BY  MR.  CHANDLER  OF 
CONCORD,  CONCERNING  THE  PROHIBITION  OF 
FREE  PASSES  ON  RAILROADS  BY  THE  CONSTI- 
TUTIONS AND  LAWS  OF  THE  VARIOUS  STATES 
OF  THE  UNION. 

Alabama — Prohibited  by  the  Constitution  of  September  3, 
1901.  Article  thirteen,  section  244,  as  follows: 

No  railroad  or  other  transportation  company  or  corpora- 
tion shall  grant  free  passes  or  sell  tickets  or  passes  at  a  dis- 
count, other  than  as  sold  to  the  public  generally,  to  any 
member  of  the  legislature  or  to  any  officer  exercising  judicial 
functions  under  the  laws  of  this  state;  and  any  such  member 
or  officer  receiving  such  a  pass  or  ticket  for  himself,  or  pro- 
curing the  same  for  another,  shall  be  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor, 
and,  upon  conviction,  shall  be  fined  not  exceeding  five  hun- 
dred dollars,  and  at  the  discretion  of  the  court  trying  the 
case,  in  addition  to  such  fine,  may  imprison  for  a  term  not 
exceeding  six  months,  and  upon  conviction,  shall  be  subject 
to  impeachment  and  removal  from  office.  The  courts  having 
jurisdiction  shall  give  this  law  specially  in  charge  to  the 
grand  juries,  and  when  the  evidence  is  sufficient  to  authorize 
an  indictment,  the  grand  jury  must  present  a  true  bill.  The 
circuit  court  or  any  court  of  like  jurisdiction  in  any  county 
into  or  through  which  such  member  or  officer  is  transported 
by  the  use  of  such  prohibited  pass  or  ticket,  shall  have  juris- 
diction of  the  case,  provided  only  one  prosecution  shall  be 
had  for  the  same  offense;  and  provided  further,  that  the  trial 
and  judgment  for  one  offense  shall  not  bar  a  prosecution  for 
another  offense  when  the  same  pass  or  ticket  is  used;  and 
provided  further,  that  nothing  herein  shall  prevent  a  mem- 
ber of  the  legislature  who  is  a  lona  fide  employe  of  a  rail- 
road or  other  transportation  company  or  corporation  at  the 
time  of  his  election,  from  accepting  or  procuring  for  himself 
or  another,  not  a  member  of  the  legislature,  or  officer  exercis- 
ing judicial  functions,  a  free  pass  over  the  railroads  or  other 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  231 

transportation  company  or  corporation  by  which  he  is  em- 
ployed. 

245.  No  railroad  company  shall  give  or  pay  any  rebate, 
or  a  bonus  in  the  nature  thereof,  directly  or  indirectly,  or 
do  any  act  to  mislead  or  deceive  the  public  as  to  the  real 
rates  charged  or  received  for  freights  or  passage;  and  any 
such  payments  shall  be  illegal  and  void,  and  these  prohibi- 
tions shall  be  enforced  by  suitable  penalties. 

Arkansas — Prohibited  by  the  statutes. 

California — The  Constitution  prohibits  the  granting  of 
passes  or  free  tickets  to  any  person  holding  any  office  of 
honor,  trust,  or  profit,  and  the  acceptance  thereof  makes  a 
forfeiture  of  his  office. 

Colorado — None. 

Connecticut — None. 

D  elawar  e — None . 

Florida — The  Constitution  prohibits  state  officials  from 
using  free  passes. 

Georgia — None. 

Idaho — None. 

Illinois — None. 

Indiana — None. 

Iowa — None. 

Kansas — None. 

Kentucky — Prohibited  by  Constitution,  section  197,  as 
follows: 

Free  passes — Issuance  or  acceptance  of  forbidden.  No 
railroad,  steamboat,  or  other  common  carrier,  under  heavy 
penalty  to  be  fixed  by  the  general  assembly,  shall  give  a  free 
pass,  or  passes,  or  shall,  at  reduced  rates  not  common  to  the 
public,  sell  tickets  for  transportation  to  any  state,  district, 
city,  town,  or  county  officer,  or  member  of  the  general  assem- 
bly, or  judge;  and  any  state,  district,  city,  town,  or  county 
officer,  or  member  of  the  general  assembly,  or  judge,  who 
shall  accept  or  use  a  free  pass,  or  passes,  or  shall  receive  or 
use  tickets  or  transportation  at  reduced  rates  not  common 
to  the  public,  shall  forfeit  his  office.  It  shall  be  the  duty 


232     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

of  the  general  assembly  to  enact  laws  to  enforce  the  pro- 
visions of  this  section. 

Louisiana — Prohibited  by  the  Constitution  as  follows: 

AET.  191.  No  member  of  the  general  assembly,  or  public 
officer,  or  person  elected  or  appointed  to  a  public  office  under 
the  laws  of  this  state,  shall  directly  or  indirectly  demand, 
accept,  receive  or  consent  to  receive,  for  his  own  use  or  bene- 
fit, or  for  the  use  or  benefit  of  another,  any  free  pass,  free 
transportation,  franking  privilege,  or  discrimination  in  pas- 
senger, telegraph  or  telephone  rates,  from  any  person  or  cor- 
poration, or  make  use  of  the  same  himself  or  in  conjunction 
with  another. 

Any  person  who  violates  any  provision  of  this  article  shall 
forfeit  his  office,  at  the  suit  of  the  attorney-general,  or  the 
district  attorney,  to  be  brought  at  the  domicile  of  the  defend- 
ant, and  shall  be  subject  to  such  further  penalty  as  may  be 
prescribed  by  law. 

Any  corporation,  or  officer,  or  agent  thereof,  who  shall  give, 
or  offer,  or  promise,  to  a  public  officer,  any  such  free  pass, 
free  transportation,  franking  privilege,  or  discrimination, 
shall  be  liable  to  punishment  for  each  offense  by  a  fine  of 
five  hundred  dollars,  to  be  recovered  at  the  suit  of  the  attor- 
ney-general, or  district  attorney,  to  be  brought  at  the  'domi- 
cile of  the  officer  to  whom  such  free  pass,  free  transportation, 
franking  privilege,  or  discrimination  was  given,  offered,  or 
promised. 

No  person,  officer,  or  agent  of  a  corporation,  giving  any 
such  free  pass,  free  transportation,  frankling  privilege,  or 
discrimination,  hereby  prohibited,  shall  be  privileged  from 
testifying  in  relation  thereto;  but  he  shall  not  be  liable  to 
civil  or  criminal  prosecution  therefor,  if  he  shall  testify  to 
the  giving  of  the  same. 

Maine — None. 

Maryland — None. 

Massachusetts — Forbidden  by  legislature  as  follows: 

An  act  relating  to  the  issuing  of  railroad  passes  and  the 
compensation  of  members  of  the  legislature: 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  233 

SECTION  1.  No  railroad  corporation  shall  issue  to  the 
governor,,  lieutenant-governor,  any  member  of  the  council, 
any  judge  of  the  supreme  judicial  court,  or  the  superior  court, 
probate  court,  municipal  or  district  court,  or  county  com- 
missioners, or  any  member  or  member-elect  of  the  legis- 
lature, any  free  pass,  or  any  ticket  entitling  him  to  transpor- 
tation at  a  less  rate  of  fare  than  is  demanded  of  the  public 
generally. 

SECT.  2.  Any  officer,  agent,  of  employee  of  a  railroad 
corporation  who  issues,  delivers,  or  offers  to  any  person  men- 
tioned in  section  one  of  this  act,  or  to  or  for  any  other  per- 
son at  the  request,  solicitation,  or  procurement  of  any  per- 
son mentioned  in  section  one,  any  free  pass  or  any  ticket 
entitling  him  to  transportation  at  a  less  rate  of  fare  than  is 
demanded  of  the  public  generally,  shall  be  punished  by  a 
fine  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  nor  more  than  one  thousand 
dollars. 

SECT.  3.  Any  person  mentioned  in  section  one  of  this 
act  who  requests,  for  himself  or  another,  accepts  or  uses  any 
free  pass  upon  a  railroad,  or  any  ticket  entitling  him  to 
transportation  upon  a  railroad,  for  which  he  has  paid  a  less 
price  than  is  demanded  of  the  public  generally,  shall  be  punT 
ished  by  a  fine  of  not  less  than  one  hundred  nor  more  than 
one  thousand  dollars. 

SECT.  4.  Each  member  of  the  senate  and  house  of  rep- 
resentatives shall  receive  seven  hundred  and  fifty  dollars  for 
the  regular  annual  session  for  which  he  is  elected,  and  two 
dollars  for  every  mile  of  ordinary  traveling  distance  from 
his  place  of  abode  to  the  place  of  the  sitting  of  the  general 
court;  and  the  president  of  the  senate  and  the  speaker  of  the 
house  shall  receive  double  the  compensation  provided  for 
members,  and  two  dollars  for  every  mile  of  ordinary  travel- 
ing distance  from  his  place  of  abode  as  aforesaid. 

SECT.  5.  This  act  shall  take  effect  upon  its  passage.  [Ap- 
proved March  14,  1892.] 

Michigan — None. 

Minnesota — None. 


234    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mississippi — Not  heard  from. 

Missouri — Prohibited  by  Constitution,  article  twelve,  sec- 
tion twenty-four,  as  follows: 

Free  passes,  granting  to  state  officers,  forfeiture.  No  rail- 
road or  other  transportation  company  shall  grant  free  passes 
or  tickets,  or  passes  or  tickets  at  a  discount,  to  members  of 
the  general  assembly,  or  members  of  the  board  of  equalization, 
or  any  state  or  county  or  municipal  officers;  and  the  accept- 
ance of  such  pass  or  ticket,  by  a  member  of  the  general  as- 
sembly, or  any  such  officer,  shall  be  a  forfeiture  of  his  office. 

Montana — None. 

Nebraska — None . 

Nevada — None. 

New  Hampshire — Free  transportation  is  allowed  to  stock- 
holders at  annual  meetings,  officers  of  the  railroad  and  of 
connecting  railroads,  persons  in  charge  of  mails  and  express, 
and  poor  persons  and  persons  in  misfortune  who  are  unable 
to  pay  the  fare  and  others  to  whom  passes  have  been  granted. 

New  York — Prohibited  by  Constitution,  article  thirteen,  as 
follows: 

SECT.  5.  No  public  officer,  or  person  elected  or  appointed 
to  a  public  office,  under  the  laws  of  this  state,  shall  directly 
or  indirectly  ask,  demand,  accept,  receive  or  consent  to  re- 
ceive for  his  own  use  or  benefit,  or  for  the  use  or  benefit  of 
another,  any  free  pass,  free  transportation,  franking  privilege 
or  discrimination  in  passenger,  telegraph  or  telephone  rates, 
from  any  person  or  corporation,  or  make  use  of  the  same 
iiimself  or  in  conjunction  with  another.  A  person  who  vio- 
lates any  provision  of  this  section  shall  be  deemed  guilty  of 
a  misdemeanor  and  shall  forfeit  his  office  at  the  suit  of  the 
attorney-general.  Any  corporation,  or  officer  or  agent 
thereof,  who  shall  offer  or  promise  to  a  public  officer,  or  per- 
son elected  or  appointed  to  a  public  office,  any  such  free  pass, 
free  transportation,  franking  privilege  or  discrimination 
shall  also  be  deemed  guilty  of  a  misdemeanor  and  liable  to 
punishment  except  as  herein  provided.  No  person,  or  officer 
or  agent  of  a  corporation,  giving  any  such  free  pass,  free 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  235 

transportation,  franking  privilege  or  discrimination  hereby 
prohibited,  shall  be  privileged  from  testifying  in  relation 
thereto  and  he  shall  not  be  liable  to  civil  or  criminal  prose- 
cution therefor  if  he  shall  testify  to  the  giving  of  the  same. 

SECT.  6.  Any  district  attorney  who  shall  fail  faithfully 
to  prosecute  a  person  charged  with  the  violation  in  his  county 
of  any  provision  of  this  article  which  may  come  to  his  knowl- 
edge, shall  be  removed  from  office  by  the  governor,  after  due 
notice  and  an  opportunity  of  being  heard  in  his  defense.  The 
expenses  which  shall  be  incurred  by  any  county,  in  investi- 
gating and  prosecuting  any  charge  of  bribery  or  attempting 
to  bribe  any  person  holding  office  under  the  laws  of  this  state 
within  such  county,  or  of  receiving  bribes  by  any  such  per- 
son in  said  county,  shall  be  a  charge  against  the  state,  and 
their  payment  by  the  state  shall  be  provided  for  by  law. 

North  Carolina — Not  heard  from. 

North  Dakota — None. 

Ohio — None. 

Oregon — None. 

Pennsylvania — Prohibited  by  Constitution,  article  seven- 
teen, section  eight,  as  follows: 

No  railroad,  railway  or  other  transportation  company  shall 
grant  free  passes,  or  passes  at  a  discount,  to  any  person  ex- 
cept officers  or  employes  of  the  company. 

Ehode  Island — None. 

South  Carolina — The  statutes  prohibit  the  use  of  free 
railroad  passes. 

South  Dakota — None. 

rennessee — None. 

Texas — None. 

Utah — The  law  prohibits  free  railroad  passes,  but  there  is- 
no  penalty  attached  to  a  violation  of  the  statute,  and  it  is  not 
generally  observed. 

Vermont — None. 

Virginia— Prohibited  by  Constitution  of  1901-'02,  as  fol- 
lows: 

SECT.  161.     No  transportation  or  transmission   company 


236     JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

doing  business  in  this  state  shall  grant  to  any  member  of  the 
general  assembly,  or  to  any  state,  county,  district,  or  munici- 
pal officer,  except  to  members  and  officers  of  the  state  cor- 
poration commission  for  their  personal  use  while  in  office, 
any  frank,  free  pass,  free  transportation,  or  any  rebate  or 
reduction  in  the  rates  charged  by  such  company  to  the  gen- 
eral public  for  like  services.  For  violation  of  the  provisions 
oi  this  section  the  offending  company  shall  be  liable  to  such 
penalties  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law;  and  any  member  of 
the  general  assembly,  or  any  such  officer,  who  shall,  while  in 
office,  accept  any  gift,  privilege  or  benefit  as  is  prohibited  by 
this  section,  shall  thereby  forfeit  his  office,  and  be  subject 
to  such  further  penalties  as  may  be  prescribed  by  law;  but 
this  section  shall  not  prevent  a  street  railway  company  from 
transporting  free  of  charge  any  member  of  the  police  force 
or  fire  department  while  in  the  discharge  of  his  official  du- 
ties, nor  prohibit  the  acceptance  by  any  such  policeman  or 
fireman  of  such  free  transportation. 

Washington — Not  heard  from. 

West  Virginia — None. 

Wisconsin — Prohibited  by  amendment  to  article  thirteen 
of  the  Constitution,  adopted  November  4,  1902,  as  follows: 

SECT.  11.  No  person,  association,  co-partnership  or  cor- 
poration, shall  promise,  offer,  or  give  for  any  purpose,  to 
any  political  committee,  or  any  member  or  employee  thereof, 
to  any  candidate  for,  or  incumbent  of  any  office  or  position 
under  the  Constitution  or  laws,  or  under  any  ordinance  of 
any  town  or  municipality  of  this  state,  or  to  any  person  at 
the  request  or  for  the  advantage  of  all,  or  any  of  them,  any 
free  pass  or  frank,  or  any  privilege  withheld  from  any  per- 
son, for  the  traveling  accommodation  or  transportation  of 
any  person  or  property,  or  the  transmission  of  any  message 
or  communication.  No  political  committee,  and  no  member 
or  employee  thereof,  no  candidate  for,  and  no  encumbent  of 
any  office  or  position  under  the  Constitution  or  laws,  or  under 
any  ordinance  of  any  town  or  municipality  of  this  state,  shall 
ask  for,  or  accept,  from  any  person,  association,  co-partner- 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  237 

ship,  or  corporation,  or  use,  in  any  manner,  or  for  any  pur- 
pose, any  free  pass  or  frank,  or  any  privilege  withheld  from 
any  person,  for  the  traveling  accommodation  or  transporta- 
tion of  any  person  or  property,  or  the  transmission  of  any 
message  or  communication.  Any  violation  of  any  of  the 
above  provisions  shall  be  bribery  and  be  punished  as  provided 
by  law,  and  if  any  officer  or  any  member  of  the  legislature  be 
guilty  thereof,  his  office  shall  become  vacant.  No  person 
within  the  purview  of  this  act  shall  be  privileged  from  testi- 
fying in  relation  to  anything  therein  prohibited;  and  no  per- 
son having  so  testified  shall  be  liable  to  any  prosecution  or 
punishment  for  any  offense  concerning  which  he  was  required 
to  give  his  testimony  or  produce  any  documentary  evidence. 
The  railroad  commissioner  and  his  deputy  in  the  discharge 
of  duty  are  excepted  from  the  provisions  of  this  amendment. 
"Wy  omi  ng — None. 

SUMMAEY. 

Prohibited  by  Constitution  in  states 9 

Prohibited  by  statutes  in  states 5 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth  offered  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

Resolved,  That  article  ninety-three  of  part  second  of  the 
Constitution  of  this  state  be  amended  by  inserting  after  the 
word  "  viz.,"  in  the  third  line  of  said  article,  the  following: 

"  Judge  of  the  supreme  court  or  of  any  inferior  court,  at- 
torney-general, county  solicitor,  secretary  of  state,  state  treas- 
urer, adjutant-general/'  so  that  said  section  when  amended 
shall  read  as  follows: 

ART.  93.  No  person  shall  be  capable  of  exercising  at  the 
same  time  more  than  one  of  the  following  offices  within  this, 
state,  viz.,  judge  of  the  supreme  court  or  of  any  inferior 
court,  attorney-general,  county  solicitor,  secretary  of  state, 
state  treasurer,  adjutant-general,  judge  of  probate,  sheriff, 
register  of  deeds;  and  never  more  than  two  offices  of  profit,. 


238    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

which,  may  be  held  by  appointment  of  the  governor,  or  gov- 
ernor and  council,  or  senate  and  house  of  representatives,  or 
superior  or  inferior  courts,  military  offices  and  offices  of  jus- 
tices of  the  peace  excepted. 

V 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Ju- 
dicial Department. 

Mr.  Colby  of  Hanover  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  six  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  the  Con- 
stitution be  amended  by  striking  out  in  lines  one  and  two 
of  the  first  paragraph  the  words  "  rightly  grounded  on  evan- 
gelical principles,"  and  in  line  thirteen  of  the  same  para- 
graph the  word  "  Protestant,"  so  that  as  amended  the  said 
article  six  shall  read  as  follows: 

ART.  6.  As  morality  and  piety  will  give  the  best  and 
greatest  security  to  government,  and  will  lay  in  the  hearts 
of  men  the  strongest  obligations  to  due  subjection,  and  as 
the  knowledge  of  these  is  most  likely  to  be  propagated 
through  a  society  by  the  institution  of  the  public  worship  of 
the  Deity  and  of  public  instruction  in  morality  and  religion, 
therefore,  to  promote  these  important  purposes,  the  people 
of  this  state  have  a  right  to  empower,  and  do  hereby  fully 
empower,  the  legislature  to  authorize,  from  time  to  time, 
the  several  towns,  parishes,  bodies  corporate,  or  religious 
societies  within  this  state  to  make  adequate  provision,  at  their 
own  expense,  for  the  support  and  maintenance  of  public 
teachers  of  piety,  religion,  and  morality.  Provided,  nottvith- 
standing,  that  the  several  towns,  parishes,  bodies  corporate, 
or  religious  societies  shall  at  all  times  have  the  exclusive 
right  of  electing  their  own  public  teachers,  and  of  contract- 
ing with  them  for  their  support  and  maintenance.  And  no 
person  of  any  one  particular  religious  sect  or  denomination 
shall  ever  be  compelled  to  pay  toward  the  support  of  the 
teacher  or  teachers  of  another  persuasion,  sect,  or  denomina- 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  239 

tion.  And  every  denomination  of  Christians,  demeaning 
themselves  quietly  and  as  good  subjects  of  the  state,  shall  be 
equally  under  the  protection  of  the  law;  and  no  subordination 
of  any  one  sect  or  denomination  to  another  shall  ever  be 
established  by  law.  And  nothing  herein  shall  be  understood 
to  affect  any  former  contracts  made  for  the  support  of  the 
ministry;  but  all  such  contracts  shall  remain  and  be  in  the 
same  state  as  if  this  Constitution  had  not  been  made. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Bill 
of  Eights  and  Executive  Department. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  desire  to  present  the  fol- 
lowing resolution,  proposing  an  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution with  reference  to  trusts: 

Resolved,  That  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  be  sub- 
mitted as  follows: 

The  legislature  shall  have  power  to  define,  regulate,  pro- 
hibit, or  dissolve  trusts,  monopolies,  or  combinations,  whether 
existing  in  the  form  of  a  corporation  or  otherwise. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  wish  to  state,  for  the  infor- 
mation of  the  Convention,  that  the  proposition  is  in  the  exact 
form  in  which  it  was  voted  on  in  the  house  of  representatives 
in  congress,  on  June  1,  1900,  except  that  the  word  "  con- 
gress "  was  used  instead  of  the  word  "  legislature."  That 
proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States 
received  154  votes  and  132  votes  were  cast  against  it,  so  there 
not  being  a  two-thirds  vote  in  its  favor,  it  did  not  go  from 
the  house  of  representatives  to  the  senate. 

The  reason  that  it  was  not  adopted  was  because  the  Demo- 
crats, with  substantial  unanimity,  objected,  not  so  much  to 
giving  that  power  to  congress,  as  they  did  to  taking  the  power 
to  regulate  the  trusts  away  from  the  states.  So,  Mr.  Presi- 
dent, it  was  fairly  to  be  inferred  that  every  one  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  house  of  representatives  would  be  in  favor  of  this 


240    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

resolution,  declaring  that  the  legislatures  of  the  states  should 
have  this  power  with  reference  to  trusts,  and  it  has  occurred 
to  me  that  perhaps  this  Convention  would  prefer  this  propo- 
sition which  154  members  of  the  national  house  of  represent- 
atives voted  for,  and  to  which  the  132  Democrats  objected 
only  because  they  feared  it  would  deprive  the  states  of  gower. 
They  would  undoubtedly  all  have  been  willing  to  grant  that 
power  to  the  legislatures  of  their  states,  and  they  would 
undoubtedly  be  in  favor  of  urging  their  legislatures  in  accord- 
ance with  the  substance  of  this  resolution. 

I  ask  that  this  resolution  be  printed  and  considered  with 
the  other  resolutions  in  relation  to  trusts. 

Mr.  Worcester  of  Milford  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  ninety-six  of  the  Constitution  be 
amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "  silver  at  six  shillings 
and  eight  pence  per  ounce,"  and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the 
following:  "the  standard  coinage  of  the  United  States  of 
America,"  so  that  said  article  shall  read  as  follows:- 

AET.  96.  In  all  cases  where  sums  of  money  are  mentioned 
in  this  Constitution,  the  value  thereof  shall  be  computed  in 
the  standard  coinage  of  the  United  States  of  America. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  other  Proposed 
Amendments. 

Mr.  Clyde  of  Hudson  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  so  amended  as  to  pro- 
vide for  the  election  biennially  of  one  representative  from 
each  and  every  town  and  from  each  and  every  ward  of  the 
cities  throughout  the  state,  and  that  the  Constitution  be 
further  amended  so  that  five  per  cent,  of  the  qualified  voters 
of  the  state,  upon  petition,  may  invoke  either  the  initiative  or 
the  referendum  and  a  majority  of  the  people  thereupon  by 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  241 

direct  vote  enact  any  measure  that  has  by  such  initiative  peti- 
tion been  proposed  or  reject  and  veto  any  measure  that  has 
been  by  their  general  court  passed  and  by  reason  of  such  ref- 
erendum petition  to  them  referred. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
to  be  considered  with  other  resolutions  relating  to  like  sub- 
jects. 

Mr.  Newell  of  Keene  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  eleven,  part  second  of  the  Constitu- 
tion of  this  state  be  amended  by  striking  out  the  word  "  six," 
and  inserting  instead  thereof  the  word  "  eight,"  so  that  it 
shall  read  as  follows: 

Whenever  any  town,  or  city  ward,  shall  have  less  than 
eight  hundred  such  inhabitants,  the  general  court  shall  au- 
thorize such  town,  place,  or  ward  to  elect  and  send  to  the 
general  court  a  representative  such  proportionate  part  of  thf 
time  as  the  number  of  its  inhabitants  shall  bear  to  800,  but 
the  general  court  shall  not  authorize  any  such  town,  place,  or 
ward  to  elect  and  send  such  representative,  except  as  herein 
provided. 

Referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  be  taken  up  with 
other  resolutions  of  like  character. 

Mr.  Russell  of  Plymouth  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  forty-seven,  part  second,  be  amended 
by  adding  to  it  the  words  "  provided,  that  no  person  shall  be 
so  nominated  and  recommended  until  he  shall  have  been 
examined  and  found  duly  qualified  by  an  examining  board 
appointed  by  the  governor,"  so  that  the  said  article  forty- 
seven  will  read  as  follows: 

ART.  47.     The  captains  and  subalterns  in  the  respective 
regiments  shall  be  nominated  and  recommended  by  the  field 
16 


242     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

officers  to  the  governor,  who  is  to  issue  their  commissions 
immediately  on  receipt  of  such  recommendation:  provided, 
that  no  person  shall  be  so  nominated  or  recommended  until 
he  shall  have  been  examined  and  found  duly  qualified  by  an 
examining  board  appointed  by  the  governor. 

That  article  fifty-three  and  article  fifty-six,  part  second,  be 
stricken  out. 

That  article  sixty-six,  part  second,  be  amended  by  striking 
out  the  words  "  commissary-general "  and  inserting  the 
words  "  and  the  "  between  the  word  "  secretary "  and  the 
word  "treasurer/7  so  that  the  said  article  sixty-six  will  read 
as  follows: 

ART.  66.  The  secretary  and  the  treasurer  shall  be  chosen 
by  joint  ballot  of  the  senators  and  representatives  assembled 
in  one  room. 

Eeferred  to  Committee  on  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the 
Constitution  and  other  Proposed  Amendments. 

Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  amendment 
to  the  Constitution: 

Amend  article  eighty- two  by  adding  thereto  the  following: 

And,  further,  full  power  is  hereby  granted  to  the  said 
general  court  to  enact  laws  to  prevent,  by  civil  and  criminal 
process,  the  operations  within  the  state  of  any  trust  or  cor- 
poration, foreign  or  domestic,  which  endeavors  to  raise  the 
price  of  any  article  of  commerce  by  restraint  of  trade,  monop- 
oly, or  other  unfair  means;  to  control  and  regulate  the  acts 
of  all  corporations  doing  business  within  the  state,  and  pre- 
vent their  encroachments  upon  the  liberties  of  the  people. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  appropriate  committee. 

Eeferred  to  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department. 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  243 

Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  resolution: 
Amend  article  five,  part  two,  by  adding: 

And  said  general  court  is  authorized  and  directed  to  enact 
statutes  which  shall  prevent  the  giving  or  issuing  of  railroad 
passes,  except  to  actual  railroad  officials  or  employees,  and 
poor  persons  in  misfortune. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  proper  committee. 

Referred  to  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department. 

Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  proposed 
amendment  to  the  Constitution: 

Strike  out  article  sixty-six,  part  two,  and  insert  in  place 
thereof  the  following-: 


e* 


The  secretary,  treasurer,  labor  commissioner,  and  railroad 
commissioners  shall  be  chosen  by  vote  of  the  people  at  the 
same  time  and  in  the  same  manner  as  the  governor  is  chosen; 
all  police  and  other  commissioners  having  to  do  \vith  city  or 
town  affairs  shall  be  chosen  at  local  elections  by  the  citizens 
of  the  town  or  cit}-  which  said  commissioners  are  to  serve. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  appropriate  committee. 

Referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department. 
Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Amend  part  second  of  the  Constitution  by  striking  out 
articles  ninety-eight  and  ninety-nine,  and  inserting  in  lieu 
thereof  the  following: 

ART.  98.  Any  amendment  or  amendments  to  this  Consti- 
tution may  be  proposed  in  either  branch  of  the  legislature; 
and  if  the  same  shall  be  agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  the  mem- 
bers elected  to  each  of  the  two  houses,  such  proposed  amend- 


244    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ment  or  amendments  shall  be  entered  on  their  journals,  with 
the  yeas  and  nays  taken  thereon,  and  referred  to  the  legis- 
lature to  be  chosen  at  the  next  general  election,  and  shall  be 
published  in  some  newspaper  in  each  county  of  the  state  for 
three  months  previous  to  the  time  of  holding  such  election; 
and  if,  in  the  legislature  so  next  chosen,  such  proposed 
amendment  or  amendments  shall  be  agreed  to  by  a  majority 
of  all  the  members  elected  to  each  house,  then  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  legislature  to  submit  such  proposed  amendment 
or  amendments  to  the  people,  in  such  manner,  and  at  such 
time,  as  the  legislature  shall  prescribe;  and  if  the  people  shall 
approve  and  ratify  such  amendment  or  amendments  by  a 
majority  of  the  electors  voting  thereon,  such  amendment  or 
amendments  shall  become  part  of  the  Constitution;  provided, 
that  if  more  than  one  amendment  be  submitted  at  the  same 
time,  they  shall  be  submitted  in  such  manner  that  the  people 
may  vote  for  or  against  such  amendments  separately. 

ART.  99.  If  at  any  time  a  majority  of  the  senate  and 
house  shall  deem  it  necessary  to  call  a  Convention  to  revise 
or  change  this  Constitution,  they  shall  recommend  to  the 
electors  to  vote  for  or  against  a  Convention  at  the  next  elec- 
tion for  members  of  the  legislature.  And  if  it  shall  appear 
that  a  majority  of  the  electors  voting  thereon  have  voted 
for  a  Convention,  the  legislature  shall,  at  its  next  session, 
provide  for  calling  such  Convention. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  other  Proposed 
Amendments. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Amend  article  seven,  part  second,  title  "  General  Court/' 
of  the  Constitution  by  adding  thereto  as  follows: 

.Nor  shall  the   general   court  pass  any  local,   private,   or 
special   law,   regulating  the   practice   or  jurisdiction   of,   or 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  245 

-changing  the  rules  of  evidence  in  any  judicial -proceeding  or 
inquiry  before  courts,  justices  of  the  peace,  sheriffs,  coroners, 
commissioners,  arbitrators,  or  other  tribunals,  or  providing 
or  changing  methods  for  the  collection  of  debts  Or  the  en- 
forcement of  judgments  or  prescribing  the  effect  of  judicial 
.sales  of  real  estate; 

Regulating  the  fees  or  extending  the  powers  and  duties  .of 
justices  of  the  peace,  sheriffs,  constables,  or  other  officers; 

Creating  offices,  or  prescribing  the  powers  and  duties  of 
officers  in  counties,  cities,  towns,  election  or  school  districts; 

Changing  the  law  of  descent  or  succession; 

Affecting  the  estates  of  minors  or  persons  under  disability; 

Exempting  property  from  taxation; 

Fixing  the  rate  of  interest; 

Regulating  labor,  trade,  mining  or  manufacturing; 

Creating  corporations  or  granting  corporate  powers  or 
privileges,  or  amending,  renewing,  extending  or  explaining 
the  charter  thereof; 

C4ranting  to  any  corporation,  association  or  individual  any 
special  or  exclusive  right,  privilege  or  immunity,  or  to  any 
corporation,  association  or  individual  the  right  to  la}^  down 
a  railroad  track; 

Extending  the  time  for  the  assessment  or  collection  of 
taxes,  or  otherwise  relieving  any  assessor  or  collector  of 
taxes  from  the  due  performance  of  his  official  duties,  or  his 
securities  from  liability; 

Legalizing  the  unauthorized  or  invalid  acts  of  any  officer 
or  agent  of  the  state  or  of  any  county,  town  or  municipality 
thereof; 

Authorizing  the  creation,  extension  or  impairing  of  liens, 
the  adoption  of,  or  legitimation  of,  children  or  the  granting 
of  divorces; 

Changing  the  venue  in  civil  or  criminal  cases,  the  law  for 
the  punishment  of  crimes,  or  the  names  of  persons  or  places; 

Giving  effect  to  informal  or  invalid  wills,  deeds,  or  other 
instruments,  summoning  grand  or  petit  juries,  or  for  the 
limitation  of  actions  at  law  or  in  equity; 


246     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Declaring  any  person  of  age  or  authorizing  any  minor  to 
sell,  lease  or  encumber  his  or  her  property; 

Providing  for  the  management  of  common  or  public 
schools; 

Restoring  to  citizenship  persons  convicted  of  infamous 
crimes; 

Relating  to  cemeteries,  graveyards,  or  public  grounds,  not 
of  the  state  and  in  all  other  cases  where  a  general  law  can 
be  made  applicable,  110  local  or  special  law  shall  be  enacted; 
and  whether  a  general  law  could  have  been  made  applicable 
in  any  case  is  hereby  declared  a  judicial  question,  and  as 
such  shall  be  judicially  determined  without  regard  to  any 
legislative  assertion  on  that  subject.  Nor  shall  the  general 
court  indirectly  enact  such  special  or  local  law  by  the  partial 
repeal  of  a  general  law;  but  laws  repealing  local  or  special 
acts  may  be  passed. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  articles  nine  and  ten  of  part  second  of  the 
Constitution  be  amended  as  follows:  (1)  Limit  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  people,  in  the  house  of  representatives,  to 
301;  (2)  in  the  apportionment  of  this  number  among  towns 
and  wards,  adhere  to  the  existing  proportion  between  the 
number  of  inhabitants  requisite  for  one,  or  the  first,  and  the 
number  required  for  the  second,  or  any  additional  represent- 
ative,— that  is,  the  number  of  inhabitants  required  for  a 
second,  or  any  additional  representative,  shall  be  three  times 
the  number  required  for  one,  or  the  first,  representative,  so 
that  the  mean  increasing  number  for  any  additional  repre- 
sentative shall  be  twice  the  number  required  for  one  repre- 
sentative; (3)  towns  and  wards  having  400  inhabitants,  or 
more,  but  less  than  the  number  required  for  one,  shall  be 
authorized  to  elect  a  representative  such  proportionate  part 


MONDAY,  DECEMBER  8,  1902.  247 

of  the  time  as  the  number  of  its  inhabitants  shall  bear  to 
the  number  required  for  one  representative;  (4)  contiguous 
towns,  or  towns  and  wards  having,  respectively,  less  than 
400  inhabitants,  but  whose  inhabitants  in  the  aggregate 
equal,  or  exceed,  the  number  necessary  for  one  representative, 
may,  if  each  so  decides,  by  major  vote,  in  meetings  called  for 
that  purpose,  be  authorized  to  unite  for  the  purpose  of  elect- 
ing a  representative:  and  the  votes  of  such  united  towns,  or 
wards,  shall  be  cast,  returned,  counted,  and  declared,  as  votes 
for  senators  are  now  cast,  returned,  counted,  and  declared; 
and  such  towns  as  are  not  contiguous,  or  do  not  thus  vote, 
shall  be  allotted  representation  such  a  proportionate  part  of 
the  time  as  the  number  of  their  inhabitants,  respectively, 
bears  to  the  number  required  for  one  representative; -(5)  fol- 
lowing each  general  census  of  the  United  States,  should  the 
increase  of  population,  in  the  different  towns  and  wards,  be 
so  disproportionate  as  to  require  a  reapportionment  of  the 
301  members,  in  order  to  preserve  the  proportion  and  ratio 
here  established,  the  legislature  shall  make  such  reappor- 
tionment of  representatives;  but  the  same  must  be  done  by  a 
strict  adherence  to  the  basis,  proportion,  and  ratio  here 
recognized. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
to  be  taken  up  at  the  proper  time  with  other  resolutions  of 
a  like  character. 

Mr.  Harmon  of  Effingham  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Amend  articles  nine  and  ten  of  part  second  of  the  Consti- 
tution by  striking  out  both  articles  and  inserting  the  follow- 


A  census  of  the  legal  voters  of  each  city  and  town,  on  the 
first  day  of  May,  shall  be  taken  and  returned  into  the  office 
of  the  secretary  of  state,  on  or  before  the  first  day  of  June 
in  the  year  one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  five,  and  every 
tenth  year  thereafter.  The  enumeration  aforesaid  shall  de- 


248      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

termine  the  apportionment  of  representatives  for  the  periods 
between  the  taking  of  the  census. 

The  house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of  300  members, 
which  shall  be  apportioned  by  the  legislature,  at  its  first  ses- 
sion after  the  return  of  each  enumeration,  as  aforesaid,  to 
the  several  counties  of  the  state,  equally,  as  nearly  as  may  be, 
according  tc  their  relative  number  of  legal  voters  as  ascer- 
tained by  the  preceding  enumeration,  and  it  shall  be  the  duty 
of  the  secretary  of  state  to  certify,  as  soon  as  may  be  after 
it  is  determined  by  the  legislature,  the  number  of  repre- 
sentatives to  which  each  county  shall  be  entitled,  to  the 
board  authorized  to  divide  each  county  into  representative 
districts.  The  county  commissioners  in  each  county — or  in 
lieu  of  the  county  commissioners  in  each  county,  such  board 
of  special  commissioners  in  each  county,  to  be  elected  by  the 
people  of  the  county,  as  may  for  that  purpose  be  provided  by 
law — shall  on  the  first  Tuesday  of  June  next,  after  each 
assignment  of  representatives  to  each  count}r,  assemble  at  a 
shire  town  of  their  respective  counties,  and  proceed,  as  soon 
as  may  be,  to  divide  the  same  into  representative  districts  of 
contiguous  territory,  so  as  to  apportion  the  representatives 
•assigned  to  each  county,  equally,  as  nearl}'  as  may  be,  accord- 
ing to  the  relative  population  in  the  several  districts  of  each 
county,  and  such  districts  shall  be  so  formed  that  no  town  or 
ward  shall  be  divided  therefor.  Districts  may  be  formed  for 
one  or  more  representatives  as  the  contiguity  of  territory  or 
the  physical  and  social  relations  of  the  towns  or  wards  may 
warrant.  The  legislature  at  the  next  session  after  such  di- 
vision of  the  counties  into  representative  districts  may,  upon 
appeal  by  a  town  or  ward,  examine  the  classification  of  that 
town  or  ward,  and  change  the  district  lines  of  that  county  in 
accordance  with  the  provisions  of  this  article  if  it  shall  ap- 
pear that  injustice  has  been  done. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
to  be  considered  with  resolutions  relating  to  a  like  subject. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  moved  that  when  the  Convention  ad- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  249 

journs  it  adjourn  to  meet  at  8  o'clock  in  the  evening.     Mo- 
tion declared  lost  on  a  viva  voce  vote. 

On   motion   of   Mr.   Demeritt   of  Alton,   the   Convention 
adjourned. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902. 
The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 
Prayer  was  offered  by  the  chaplain. 
The  journal  was  read  and  approved. 
Mr.  Xorris  of  Portsmouth  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  five,  part  two  of  the  Constitution  be 
amended  in  its  fourth  clause  so  that  said  clause  shall  read: 
"  and  to  impose  and  levy  proportional  and  reasonable  assess- 
ments, rates,  and  taxes  upon  all  the  inhabitants  of,  and  resi- 
dents within,  the  said  state,  and  upon  all  the  estates  and 
franchises  within  the  same,  to  be  issued  and  disposed  of  by 
warrant,  under  the  hand  of  the  governor  of  this  state  for  the 
time  being,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  council,  for 
the  public  service,  in  the  necessary  defense  and  support  of 
the  government  of  this  state  and  the  protection  and  preserva- 
tion of  the  subjects  thereof,  according  to  such  acts  as  are,  or 
shall  be,  in  force  within  the  same." 

Eeferred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department 
and  ordered  printed. 

Mr.  Xorris  of  Portsmouth  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  six,  part  two  of  the  Constitution  be 
amended  so  that  it  shall  read: 

ART.  G.  The  public  charges  of  government  or  any  part 
thereof  may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon  polls  and  estates  and 


250    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

such  other  methods  as  may  be  deemed  equitable  and  just; 
and  there  shall  be  a  valuation  of  the  estates  within  the  state 
taken  anew  once  in  every  five  years,  at  least,  and  as  much 
oftener  as  the  general  court  shall  order. 

Referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department 
and  ordered  printed. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  six,  part  second  of  the  Constitution 
be  amended  by  adding  the  following: 

Moneys  may  also  be  raised  by  taxation  in  such  other  method 
as  may  be  equal,  equitable,  and  just. 

Eeferred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department 
and  ordered  printed. 

Mr.  Ham  of  Portsmouth  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  constitution  be  amended  by  adding  at 
the  end  of  article  five  of  part  second  the  following:  "And 
further  full  power  and  authority  are  hereby  given  and  granted 
to  the  said  general  court  to  impose  and  levy  assessments, 
rates,  and  taxes  upon  the  estates  of  deceased  persons,  or 
upon  bequests,  devises  or  inheritances,  exceeding  $10,000, 
said  rates  and  taxes  to  be  graded  or  proportioned  in  such 
way  or  manner  as  said  general  court  may  direct;  but  said 
rates  and  taxes  shall  never  exceed  five  per  cent,  of  said  estates, 
bequests,  devises  or  inheritances  comprised  of  a  less  sum  than 
$20,000." 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  Committee  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter,  the  following  statis- 
tics and  tables  submitted  by  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  relating  to 
the  legislative  department  of  the  government  of  the  state, 
were  ordered  printed: 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902. 


251 


TABLE  I. 


STATE. 

Population. 

Number  of  Senators. 

No.  of  Representatives. 

. 

Ratio  of  Population.  One 
Representative  to  each. 

Has  a  Lieut.  Governor. 

Elects  Secretary  of  State, 
State  Treasurer,  Attor- 
ney-General, etc.,  in  what 
manner. 

New  Hampshire  
Alabama. 

411,588 
1  828  697 

24 
35 

393 
105 

1,045 
17  416 

No. 
Yes 

Legislature. 

Arkansas  

1,311  564 

35 

100 

13  115 

it 

tt 

California  

1  485  05.3 

40 

80 

18  563 

tt 

ii 

Colorado 

539  700 

35 

64 

8  432 

ii 

ii 

Connecticut  

908,420 

24 

255 

3  562 

ii 

ii 

Delaware  

184,735 

17 

35 

5  278 

it 

Appointed 

Florida, 

528  542 

32 

68 

7  772 

No 

People 

Georgia 

2  216  331 

44 

175 

I9  664 

it 

Idaho  . 

161  772 

21 

46 

4  494 

Yes 

< 

Illinois  

4  821  550 

51 

153 

31  513 

14 

i 

Indiana  

2  516  462 

50 

100 

25  164 

14 

i 

Iowa  . 

2  231  853 

50 

100 

22  318 

14 

i 

Kansas  

1,470,495 

40 

125 

11  763 

14 

i 

Kentucky  

2  147  174 

38 

100 

21  471 

II 

i 

Louisiana 

1  381  625 

39 

114 

12  119 

|| 

i 

Maine  

694,466 

31 

151 

4  599 

No. 

Legislature 

Maryland  

1  188  044 

27 

101 

11  762 

14 

Appt  or  El 

Alassachusetts  .  .  . 

2  805  346 

40 

240 

11  689 

Yes 

People 

Michigan 

2  490  982 

32 

100 

24  209 

ii 

u 

Minnesota  

1  751,394 

63 

118 

14  842 

ii 

II 

Mississippi  

1  551  270 

33 

107 

14  497 

ii 

^^ 

Missouri 

3  106  665 

34 

142 

22  190 

14 

II 

Montana  

243,329 

26 

72 

4  424 

II 

II 

Nebraska  

1  066  300 

33 

100 

10  663 

II 

II 

Nevada 

42  335 

18 

36 

1  176 

(I 

II 

New  Jersey 

1  883  669 

21 

60 

31  394 

ll 

Appointed 

New  York  

7  268  894 

50 

150 

48459 

tl 

People 

North  Carolina  
North  Dakota  
Ohio 

1,893.810 
319,146 
4  157  545 

50 
31 
31 

120 
62 
110 

15,781 
5,147 
37  776 

II 

l« 
14 

ii 
ii 

Oregon  

413  536 

30 

60 

6  892 

No. 

ii 

Pennsylvania  
Rhode  Island 

6,302,115 
428  556 

50 

38 

204 

72 

30,892 
5  952 

Yes. 

** 
People 

South  Carolina 

1  340  316 

37 

124 

10  809 

ii 

South  Dakota  

401  570 

45 

87 

4  615 

it 

ii 

Tennessee  

2  020  616 

33 

99 

20410 

No 

Legislature. 

Texas  

3  048  710 

31 

150 

20*325 

Yes 

People 

Utah     . 

276  749 

18 

6  149 

ii 

ii 

Vermont  

343  641 

30 

245 

1*403 

ii 

« 

Virginia  

1  854  184 

40 

100 

18  541 

14 

ii 

Washington  

518  103 

34 

78 

6  642 

|| 

14 

West  Virginia 

958  800 

24 

65 

14*750 

No 

Appt  or  El 

Wisconsin 

2  069  042 

33 

100 

20  690 

Yes 

People 

\Vvominfr 

92  531 

16 

33 

2  803 

No 

tf 

^,ouo 

'  Treasurer  by  people,  others  appointed. 


252     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
MEMORANDA. 

No  state  has  any  religious  test  or  limitation  except  New  Hamp- 
shire. See  Bill  of  Rights,  Article  6. 

Tiie  only  states  having  an  executive  council  are  Maine,  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  Massachusetts. 

Only  nine  states  have  more  than  one  representative  for  each  5,000 
inhabitants.  Of  these  New  Hampshire  has  one  representative  for 
each  1,047  inhabitants,  being  the  highest  representation  of  any  state 
in  the  Union.  In  more  than  one  third  of  the  states  there  is  only  one 
representative  for  a  population  exceeding  15,000.  See  table  herewith. 

If  the  number  of  our  representatives  should  be  reduced  to  100  there 
would  then  be  only  four  states  having  a  higher  per  capita  representa- 
tion than  New  Hampshire.  See  table  herewith. 

In  Connecticut,  Rhode  Island,  and  Vermont  every  town  is  repre- 
sented in  the  legislature  each  year.  In  New  Hampshire  the  small 
towns  elect  a  representative  for  such  part  of  the  time  as  their  popu- 
lation is  in  proportion  to  600.  In  all  other  states  representatives  are 
•elected  by  counties  or  election  districts. 

All  but  nine  states  elect  a  lieutenant  governor.  See  table  herewith. 

Thirty-five  states  elect  a  larger  number  of  senators  than  New 
Hampshire.  See  table  herewith. 

A  plurality,  or  the  highest  number  of  votes,  elects  in  all  the  states 
except  New  Hampshire,  Georgia,  and  Vermont.  In  those  states  a 
majority  is  required. 

Amendments  to  the  constitution  are  submitted  by  the  legislature 
directly  to  the  people  in  a  large  majority  of  all  the  states.  Only  in  a 
small  number  of  them  is  there  provision  for  amendment  through  con- 
ventions specially  elected  for  that  purpose. 

Elections  are  biennial  in  all  the  states  except  Massachusetts,  New 
Jersey,  New  York,  and  Rhode  Island. 

In  all  the  states  the  sessions  of  the  legislature  are  biennial  except 
in  Georgia,  Massachusetts,  New  Jersey,  New  York,  Rhode  Island, 
and  South  Carolina. 

In  four  states— Colorado,  Idaho,  Utah,  and  Wyoming — women  have 
the  full  elective  franchise.  In  many  others  they  vote  on  questions 
pertaining  to  the  public  schools. 

The  sale  of  intoxicating  liquors  is  prohibited  by  the  constitutions 
of  the  states  of  Maine,  Kansas,  and  North  Dakota. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902. 

TABLE  II. 


258 


TOWNS. 


I 


iSagtS 

C3          J»   C8  -M 


I  §1  S.S  I 


le*-i  c  .2 


7^  ®  r-n-s  a 


Rockiugham  county 


51,118 


Atkinson 442 

Auburn 682 

Brentwood 957 

Candia 1,057 

Chester 8fil 

Danville 615 

Deerfield 1,162 

Derry 3,583 

East  Kingston 496 

Epping 1,641 

Exeter 4,922 

Fremont 749 

Greenland 607 

Hampstead 823 

Hampton 1,209 

Hampton  Falls 560 

Kensington 560 

Kingston 1,132 

Londonderry 1,408 

Newcastle 581 

Newfields 647 

Newington 390 

Newmarket 2,892 

Newton 924 

North  Hampton 812 

Northwood 1,304 

Nottingham 638 

Plaistow 1,027 

Portsmouth 10,637 

Ward   1 2,644 

Ward  2 3,105 

Ward  3 ,391 

Ward  4 ,843 

Ward  5 ,654 

Raymond ,100 

Rye ,142 

Salem 2,041 

Sandown 400 

Seabrook 1,41)7 

South  Hampton 297 

Stratham 718 

Windham. . .                     641 


.6 


.4 
.9' 
L 

.5 
.5 


254     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

TABLE  II— Continued. 


TOWNS. 


I 


.KiM 

a'd  ft 


-2pfi.2«* 

P"  S  -u       -w 


Ill-Til 

M*    _s      ^J   (^     £     W 


Straff ord  county 39,337 

Barrington 1,208 

Dorer 13,207 

Ward  1 2,387 

Ward  2 3,018 

Ward  3 2,384 

Ward4 3,851 

Ward  5 1,567 

Durham 

Farmington 2,265 

Lee 545 

Madbury '. . . . 

Middleton 300 

Milton 1,625 

New  Durham 625 

Rochester 8,466 

Ward  1 131 

Ward  2 ,222 

Ward3 ,510 

Ward  4 901 

Ward  5 964 

Ward  6 ,738 

Rollinsford ,701 

Somerswortli 023 

Wardl ,285 

Ward  2 ,167 

Ward3 ,104 

Ward  4 2,183 

WardS 1,284 

Strafford 1,040 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902. 

TABLE  II— Continued. 


255 


TOWNS. 


PHI 

£   *3     rt  'O  .^ 

O  e«       §  e8  -»a 
r^  t»  n  O  .,5  o> 


.       - 
'S  3  B*d 


'y*~-*i 

llj^ssl 


Belknap  county 19,526 

Alton 1,500 

Barnstead 1,072 

Belmont 1,294 

Centre  Harbor 422 

Gilford 661 

Gilmanton 1,100 

Laconia 8,042 

Ward  1 417 

Ward  2 1,465 

Ward  3 1,073 

Ward  4 1,465 

Ward  5 1,485 

Ward  6 2,137 

Meredith 1,713 

New  Hampton 852 

Sanbornton 944 

Tilton 1,926 


.4 


256     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

TABLE  II— Continued. 


TOWNS. 


°  *  fl  o  S-g 

_.  r-!    p,  C3    ^    C 
^    M    T  rt^    '•^    ^ 


e  a 


Jpl 


Carroll  county 16,895 

Albany 210 

Bartlett 1,013 

Brookfield 296 

Chatham 

Conway ; 3, 154 

Eaton 365 

Effingham |  600 

Freedom I  594 

Hart's  Location 38 

Jackson 622 

Madison 529 

Moultonborough  901 

Ossipee 1,479 

Sandwich 1,077 

Tamworth 1,050 

Tuftonborough 663 

Wakefield 1,645 

Wolfeborough 2,390 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902. 


257 


TABLE  II— Continued. 


TOWNS. 


3  0,0  o  Is 


Merrimack  county 52,430 

Allenstown 1,496 

Andover 1,179 

Boscawen 1,455 

Bow 617 

Bradford 805 

Canterbury 821 

Chichester 598 

Concord 19,632 

Ward  1 1,911 

Ward  2 753 

Ward  3 1,043 

Ward  4 3,644 

Ward  5 2,609 

Ward  6 3,390 

Ward  7 3,178 

Ward  8 1,212 

Ward  9 1,892 

Danbury 654 

Dunbarton 551 

Epsom 771 

Franklin 5,846 

Ward  1 1,572 

Ward  2 2,365 

Ward  3 1,909 

Henniker 1,507 

Hill 603 

Hooksett 1,665 

Hopkinton 1,652 

Loudon 960 

Newbury 424 

New  London 768 

Northfield 1,227 

Pembroke 3,183 

Pittsfield 2,129 

Salisbury 604 

Sutton 776 

Warner 1,358 

Webster 496 

Wilmot 653 


.5- 
.6 
.6- 
.5 


.5 


17 


258     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

TABLE  II— Continued. 


TOWNS. 


*•«  2  -S  .i 


-s  2  .2  -g  .i 


s 


§<ce  ®«« 


Hillsborough  county 112,640 

Amherst 1,231 

Antrim 1,366 

Bedford 1,148 

Bennington 667 

Brookline 606 

Deering 486 

Francestown 693 

Goffstown 2,528 

Greenfield 605 

Greenville 1,608 

Hancock 642 

Hillsborough 2,254 

Hollis 910 

Hudson 1,261 

Litchfield 243 

Lyndeborough 686 

Manchester 56,987 

Ward    1 3,625 

Ward    2 5,501 

Ward    3 7,320 

Ward    4 6,922 

Ward    5 9,094 

Ward    6 4,880 

Ward    7 1,757 

Ward    8 5,508 

Ward    9 7,986 

Ward  10 4,394 

Mason 358 

Merrimack 1,234 

Milford 3,739 

Mont  Vernon 453 

Nashua 23,898 

Ward  1 * 2,384 

Ward  2 2,274 

Ward  3 3,476 

Ward  4 1,570 

Ward  5 1,651 

Ward  6 1,440 

Ward  7 3,477 

Ward  8 3,082 

Ward  9 4,544 

New  Boston 1,002 

New  Ipswich 911 

Pelham 875 

Peterborough 2,527 

Sharon 122 

Temple '.....  313 

Weare 1,553 

Wilton 1,696 

Windsor 38 


.5 


.3 


.0 


.0 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902. 

TABLE  II— Continued. 


259 


TOWNS. 


^Frt    03  -U     I 

-       " 


o  g 
.-  ce 


sstii 


. 

lfl 


Cheshire  county 31,321 

Alstead 799 

Chesterfield 981 

Dublin 620 

Fitzwilliam 459 

Oilsum 590 

Harrisville 791 

Hinsdale 1,933 

Jaffrey 1,891 

Keene 9,165 

Ward  1 2,488 

Ward  2 1,896 

Ward  3 1,926 

Ward  4 1,384 

Ward  5 1,471 

Marlborough 1,524 

Marlow 488 

Nelson 295 

Richmond 987 

Rindge 855 

Roxbury 100 

Stoddard 367 

Sullivan 287 

Surry 250 

Swanzey 1,570 

Troy 1,527 

Walpole 2,693 

Westmoreland 875 

Winchester 2,274 


260     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

TABLE  II— Continued. 


TOWNS. 


o  *3 


I 


IP' 


PH  .*    QJ  u_,    fl    O 

^  S^^  l'43 


Sullivan  county 18,009 

Acworth : 594 

Charlestown.! 1,473 

Claremont 6,498 

Cornish 962 

Croydon 372 

Goshen 345 

Grantham 374 

Langdon 

Lempster 391 

Newport 3,126 

Plainfield 1,114 

Springfield 439 

Sunapee 946 

Unity • 572 

Washington 464 


.6 


.5 


.4 


.4 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902. 

TABLE  II— Continued. 


261 


TOWNS. 


i 

! 


i 


Grafton  county 40,844 

Alexandria 630 

Ashland 1,289 

Bath 1,006 

Benton *. 209 

Bethlehem 1,261 

Bridgewater 244 

Bristol 1,600 

Campton 999 

Canaan 

Dorchester 

Easton 249 

Ellsworth 107 

Enfield 1,845 

Franconia 655 

Grafton 748 

Groton 346 

Hanover 1,884 

Haverhill 3,414 

Hebron 214 

Holderness 

Landaff 500 

Lebanon 4,965 

Lincoln 541 

Lisbon 2,221 

Littleton 4,066 

Liverraore 191 

Lyman 426 

Lyme 1,080 

Monroe 545 

Orange 213 

Orford 890 

Piermont 637 

Plymouth 1,972 

Rumney 837 

Thornton 552 

Warren 799 

Waterville 50 

Wentworth 617 

Woodstock 


.6 


.8 
.6 
.8 
.0 
.6 
.6 


.1 
.3 

.8 
.4 
.1 
.7 
.5 
[ 

.6 
.5 
.6 
.0 
.5 
.5 


262     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

TABLE  II— Continued. 


TOWNS. 


.        , 


§  1  *  3  3  g 


s 


O    a 

-« 5 

•=*  * 


g-2  s*.l* 


Coos  county 29,468 

Berlin 8,886 

Ward  1 3,076 

Ward  2 3,324 

Ward  3 2,486 

Cambridge 20 

Carroll 710 

Clarksville 307 

Colebropk 1,876 

Columbia. ...   

Crawford  Purchase 10 

Dal  ton 592 

Dartmouth  College  Grant 13 

Dixville 15 

Dummer 349 

Errol 305 

Gorham 1,797 

Green's  Grant 13 

Jefferson 1,080 

Kilkenny 47 

Lancaster 3,190 

Milan 1,135 

Millsfield 41 

Northumberland 1,977 

Pinkham's  Grant 4 

Pittsburg 687 

Randolph 137 

Shelburne 283 

Stark 733 

Stewartstown 1,150 

Stratford 

Success 220 

Thompson  and  Meserve  Purchase  18 

Went  worth's  Location 58 

Whitefield 2,157 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  263 

TABLE  III. 


COUNTIES. 

Number  of  representatives 
upon  the  basis  of  1,000 
population  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative. 

II 

Rockingham  

37.2 

31.5 

Strafford                          .                             ... 

25.7 

23.5 

Belknap 

14.3 

13 

Carroll  

13.1 

10.4 

Merrimack  

36.1 

30.4 

Hillsborough 

65.6 

54.3 

Cheshire 

21 

18.9 

Sullivan  

12.8 

10.4 

Graf  ton      .       ...                   .         

29.4 

.23.7 

Coos                                                           .     . 

19  9 

14.8 

Total  for  state  

275.1 

230.9 

TABLE  IY. 

If  the  state  should  be  districted  as  a  whole,  every  inhabitant  would 
be  represented  all  the  time,  and  each  district  would  have  a  popula- 
tion of 

1,372  for  300  representatives. 


1,497 
1,646 
1,829 
2,057 
2,351 
2,744 
3,212 
4,115 


275 
250 
225 
200 
175 
150 
125 
100 


264     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover  offered  the  following  resolution: 
Amend  article  four,  part  two,  by  adding  the  following: 

"  Provided,  however,  that  the  supreme  court,  as  now  estab- 
lished, shall  continue  to  be  the  final  court  for  the  determina- 
tion of  questions  of  law,  and  the  superior  court,  as  now  estab- 
lished, shall  continue  to  be  the  final  court  for  the  determina- 
tion of  questions  of  fact.  The  number  of  judges  upon  each 
of  said  courts  may  be  changed  only  by  adding  to  said  num- 
ber no  more  than  two  at  any  one  session  of  the  general  court, 
and  the  salary  of  said  judges  shall  not  be  diminished  during 
their  term  of  office. 

Eef erred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department 
and  ordered  printed. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  twenty-eight,  part  first  of  the  Bill 
of  Rights  be  amended  by  adding  thereto  the  following: 

No  city  or  town  shall  hereafter  have  authority  to  vote  to 
exempt  from  taxation  any  property  used  for  purposes  of 
profit  or  gain. 

Referred  to  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department  and 
ordered  printed. 

Mr.  Ledoux  of  Nashua  offered  the  following  resolution: 
Amend  article  five,  part  two,  by  adding  the  following: 

Upon  the  written  petition  of  ten  per  cent,  of  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  state,  reckoning  the  percentage  upon  the  total 
number  of  votes  cast  for  governor  at  the  last  biennial  election, 
the  general  court  shall  refer  any  measure  by  it  enacted  to  the 
people;  and  no  enactment  thus  referred  shall  become  a  law 
until  it  is  approved  by  a  majority  of  the  qualified  voters 
present  and  voting  on  the  subject.  Upon  the  written  peti- 
tion of  ten  per  cent,  of  the  qualified  voters  reckoned  as  afore- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  265 

said,  any  measure  may  be  laid  before  the  general  court  and 
voted  upon  in  both  houses  without  amendment,  and  if  a 
majority  of  both  houses  shall  vote  in  favor  of  such  measure, 
it  shall  become  a  law  without  the  signature  or  approval  of 
the  governor.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  general  court  to 
frame  laws  which  shall  render  effective  the  initiative  and 
referendum  as  herein  provided. 

Eeferred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department 
and  ordered  printed. 

Mr.  Ledoux  of  Nashua  offered  the  following  resolution: 
Amend  article  eighty-two  by  adding  thereto  the  following: 

The  general  court  is  authorized  and  directed  to  pass  such 
laws  as  will  most  effectually  prevent  monopoly,  the  stifling  of 
competition,  the  artificial  raising  of  prices,  and  any  unfair 
methods  of  trade;  to  control  and  regulate  the  acts  of  all 
corporations  doing  business  within  this  state,  and  to  prevent 
their  encroachments  upon  the  liberties  of  the  people. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  made  a  special  order  to  be  taken  up  with 
other  resolutions  of  like  character. 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  twenty-five  of  the  second  part  of  the 
Constitution  be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "  and,  in 
making  this  division,  they  shall  govern  themselves  by  the 
proportion  of  direct  taxes  paid  by  the  said  districts,"  so  that 
the  article  shall  read  as  follows: 

ART.  25.  And  that  the  state  may  be  equally  represented 
in  the  senate,  the  legislature  shall  from  time  to  time  divide 
the  state  into  twenty-four  districts,  as  nearly  equal  as  may  be 
without  dividing  towns  and  unincorporated  places,  and  timely 
make  known  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  state  the  limits  of  each 
district. 


266     JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department 
and  ordered  printed. 

Mr.  Blake  of  Fitzwilliam  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  articles  twenty-four  and  twenty-five,  part 
two  of  the  Constitution,  relating  to  the  senate,  be  amended 
by  striking  out  the  words  "  twenty-four  "  in  both  said  articles 
and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  words  "  thirty-one." 

Referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department 
and  ordered  printed. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Amend  part  second,  title  "  Executive  Power,  Governor,'* 
by  striking  out  article  forty-eight  and  inserting  in  lieu  there- 
of as  follows: 

AET.  48.  A  lieutenant-governor  shall  be  chosen  at  the 
same  time,  in  the  same  manner,  for  the  same  term,  have  the 
same  qualifications,  and  be  subject  to  the  same  provisions,  as 
the  governor;  he  shall  be  president  of  the  senate,  but  shall 
have  no  vote  unless  the  senate  be  equally  divided.  He  shall 
receive  for  his  services  a  salary  of  $500  per  annum. 

In  case  the  person  elected  governor  shall  die  or  become  dis- 
qualified before  the  commencement  of  his  term  of  office,  or 
shall  refuse  to  take  the  same,  or  in  case  of  the  removal  of  the 
governor  from  office,  or  of  his  death,  resignation,  or  inability 
to  discharge  the  powers  and  duties  of  the  said  office,  the  lieu- 
tenant-governor shall  then  be  governor;  and  in  case  of  the  re- 
moval, death,  resignation,  or  inability  of  both  the  governor 
and  lieutenant-governor,  the  president  pro  tempore  of  the  sen- 
ate, if  any,  shall  be  governor;  and  in  the  event  of  his  removal, 
death,  resignation,  or  inability,  then  the  speaker  of  the  house 
of  representatives  shall  act  as  governor  until  the  disability  of 
the  officers  aforesaid  is  removed,  or  a  governor  shall  be  duly 
elected  and  qualified;  provided,  that  when  the  president  pro 
tempore  of  the  senate,  or  the  speaker  of  the  house,  shall  exer- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  267 

else  the  office  of  governor,  he  shall  not  hold  his  office  in  the 
senate  or  house,  as  the  case  may  be. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Bill  of  Eights  and  Executive  Department. 

Leave  was  granted  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment to  sit  during  to-day's  session  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution 
offered  by  Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham,  proposing  an  amend- 
ment to  article  thirty-two  of  part  second  of  the  Constitution, 
reported  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
as  proposed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Sanborn  of  Wakefield,  the  report  was 
accepted  and  the  resolution  adopted. 

Mr.  Sanborn  of  Wakefield,  from  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution 
offered  by  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  pertaining  to  the  establishment 
of  more  than  one  place  of  public  meeting  within  the  limits 
of  each  town  or  ward  in  the  state  for  the  casting  of  votes, 
reported  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,,  That  the  resolution  be  adopted. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  resolution  was  adopted 
and  the  amendment  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time 
and  Mode  of  submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments 
agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  call  for  the  special  order. 

The  President — The  gentleman  from  Concord  calls  for  the 
special  order. 


268     JOUBNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  wish  to  say  that  the  special 
order  is  subject,  by  its  terms,  to  the  consideration  oi  propo- 
sitions before  the  Convention  concerning  the  reduction  of 
the  house  of  representatives  and  the  basis  of  representation. 
This  last  subject  is  to  be  voted  on  at  12  o'clock  to-morrow, 
and  I  think  the  gentlemen  desiring  to  discuss  it  should  have 
the  whole  of  the  time  from  now  until  the  time  of  voting,  if 
they  wish.  Therefore,  I  ask  the  postponement  of  this  special 
order  in  accordance  with  its  terms,  and  move  that  the  Con- 
vention resolve  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the 
purpose  of  considering  the  various  resolutions  with  reference 
to  representation. 

(Motion  prevails.) 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia  in  the  chair.) 

The  Chairman — The  Chair  would  suggest  that  the  business 
before  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  is  the  resolutions  with 
reference  to  the  reduction  of  the  house  of  representatives 
and  the  basis  of  representation. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Committee.  As  the  subject  under  consideration  is  the 
amendment  of  articles  nine  and  ten  of  part  two,  relating  to 
representation  in  the  house  of  representatives,  and  as  no 
other  person  seems  to  be  desirous  of  being  heard  at  this  par- 
ticular time,  I  will  ask  the  indulgence  of  the  committee  and 
its  consideration  of  the  resolution  which  I  introduced  yester- 
day upon  this  subject. 

Mr.  Eogers  of  Tilton — The  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
who  has  the  floor  has  not  been  printed  and  distributed,  or 
at  least  it  has  not  been  distributed  in  this  part  of  the  hall. 
Now,  perhaps  the  members  of  the  Convention  will  understand 
the  proposition  better,  and  understand  the  gentleman  better, 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  269 

if  he  will  postpone  his  remarks  until  the  resolution  is  printed 
and  distributed. 

The  Chairman — I  would  suggest  that  the  gentleman  from 
Concord  be  pleased  to  read  his  resolution,  so  that  the  gentle- 
man from  Tilton  will  know  what  it  is,  and  then  perhaps  the 
gentleman  from  Tilton  may  be  able  to  arrange  the  matter 
with  the  gentleman  from  Concord. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord — When  I  arose,  I  supposed  the 
resolution  had  been  printed  and  distributed.  I  have  a  copy 
of  it  which  I  will,  with  the  indulgence  of  the  committee, 
read.  (Mr.  Mitchell  reads  resolution.)  Therefore,  Mr. 
Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  this  proposition 
is,  first,  that  the  number  of  representatives  be  reduced,  and 
while  I  name  the  stated  number  as  301,  that  number  is  purely 
arbitrary.  Whether  it  is  299,  277,  305,  or  any  other  number, 
perhaps  up  to  325,  is,  to  my  mind,  practically  immaterial,  so 
long  as  we  fix  it  within  a  reasonable  limit  and  make  it  perma- 
nent, and  fix  at  the  same  time,  if  possible,  the  apportionment 
and  reapportionment  of  that  number  in  the  event  that  upon 
the  basis  established  on  account  of  the  increase  of  the  popu- 
lation it  becomes  necessary  to  reapportion  in  the  future. 

The  second  proposition  is  that  we  adhere  to  the  existing 
proportion.  That  is,  after  having  fixed  the  number  neces- 
sary for  one  representative,  the  first,  multiply  that  by  three 
as  the  number  necessary  for  the  next,  which  proportion  has 
been  the  proportion  recognized  since  the  foundation  of  the 
government  as  the  basis  for  the  second  and  additional  mem- 
bers. 

The  proposition  submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Lyford,  to  establish  the  district  system,  although  a 
fair,  equitable,  and  simple  basis  for  the  distribution  of  the 
number  which  may  be  fixed,  is  a  complete  and  radical  depar- 
ture from  the  method  established  at  the  foundation  of  the 
government  in  1784  and  since  adhered  to.  In  1784,  when 
the  Constitution  was  adopted,  the  number  of  representatives 
was  determined  by  fixing  as  the  basis  for  the  first  representa- 


270    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

tive  150  ratable  polls,  and  450  for  the  second,  thus  making 
300  the  mean  increasing  number  for  any  additional  number. 
That  was  the  basis  from  1784  to  1876.  By  the  Convention 
of  1876  the  only  change  made  was  a  substitution  of  popula- 
tion for  ratable  polls — the  same  proportion,  the  same  mean 
increase,  established  in  1784  was  adhered  to  by  the  Conven- 
tion and  people  in  1876. 

The  district  system,  though  never  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple, was  proposed,  and  fully  discussed  in  the  first  Constitu- 
tional Convention  called  to  amend  the  Constitution  in  1792. 

The  proposition  at  that  time  was,  that  the  membership 
of  the  house  of  representatives  be  limited  to  sixty,  to  be 
elected  by  districts,  based  upon  population. 

The  proposition  was  made  by  William  Plummer,  a  distin- 
guished statesman,  subsequent  governor  and  United  States 
senator.  He  made  and  argued  that  proposition,  but  it  was 
overwhelmingly  rejected  by  the  Convention  and  the  basis 
established  in  1784  was  adhered  to. 

The  Convention  of  1851  adopted  and  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple a  proposition  to  change  this  basis;  but  this  was  rejected 
by  the  people  by  a  vote  of  about  34,000  against  it  and  only 
about  6,000  for  it. 

This  was  the  idea  of  equality  fixed  by  the  founders  of  our 
government,  and  the  one  since  recognized  and  adhered  to. 

We  are  informed  by  history  that  at  the  time  of  the  adop- 
tion of  the  Constitution  in  1784,  there  existed  the  same  dis- 
parity of  population  between  municipalities,  places,  and  par- 
ishes that  now  exists.  At  that  time  the  upper  house  that 
was  created,  the  senate,  consisted  of  twelve  members,  appor- 
tioned to  the  five  counties  of  the  state  in  this  way:  Eockiiig- 
ham  county,  five;  Cheshire,  Hillsborough,  and  Straff ord,  two 
each,  while  Grafton  had  but  one.  The  other  five  of  the  ten 
present  counties  having  been  created  subsequently  to  that 
time.  That  was  the  order  of  the  Convention  with  respect 
to  the  distribution  of  the  senators,  based  upon  property  and 
population.  So  that  the  conditions  confronting  the  founders 
of  this  government  at  that  time  differs  only  in  degree  from 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  271 

those  that  confront  us.  They  recognized  it  and  met  it  by 
providing  150  ratable  polls  as  the  basis  for  the  first  representa- 
tive, twice  that  number  for  the  second  and  other  additional 
representatives. 

The  people  of  New  Hampshire  are  a  conservative  people. 
This  characteristic  is  a  merit.  It  is  a  virtue  to  be  conserva- 
tive; to  proceed  slowly,  carefully,  and  cautiously,  whether  as 
a  state,  a  municipality,  or  an  individual.  Radical  changes 
should  be  made  only  after  much  consideration  and  for  good 
reason. 

Suppose  we  were  to-day,  as  we  are  not,  to  make  a  new 
Constitution;  to  fix  a  new  basis  for  representation,  we  would 
have  before  us  the  different  systems  that  have  been  proposed; 
that  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord, 'Mr.  Lyford, 
which  is  in  most  universal  use;  that  established  by  the  found- 
ers of  this  government;  that  established  by  the  people  of 
Maine,  where  they  require  1,500  population  for  the  first  rep- 
resentative, 3,750  for  the  second  representative,  6,750  for 
the  third,  10,500  for  the  fourth,  15,000  for  the  fifth,  20,500 
for  the  sixth,  and  26,500  for  the  seventh,  limiting  the  number 
of  representatives  that  any  municipality  can  have  to  seven; 
or,  we  might  have  the  basis  of  representation  that  exists  in 
the  states  of  Connecticut  and  Vermont,  i.  e.,  one  representa- 
tive for  each  municipality  without  reference  to  its  size. 

We  would  have  those  different  systems  to  select  from.  The 
relative  merits  of  those  different  plans  would  be  a  subject  on 
which  the  members  of  this  Convention  would  undoubtedly 
differ.  While  the  district  system  has  its  attractions,  its  sim- 
plicity, its  uniformity,  its  apparent  equality, — yet,  consider- 
ing our  present  condition  and  diversity  of  opinion,  1  am  in- 
clined to  think  that  the  system  established  by  the  founders 
of  this  government  may  be  quite  as  good  as  any  for  our  pur- 
poses. But  we  are  not  at  liberty  to  do  that  which,  if  every- 
thing was  undone,  we  could  do.  We  have  behind  us  a  his- 
tory, association,  supposed  rights  and  privileges,  and  every- 
thing that  goes  to  make  up  a  man  or  a  people, — the  growth  of 
over  one  hundred  years.  Those  are  elements  we  cannot 
eliminate  if  we  would. 


272    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  policy  of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  from  the  estab- 
lishment of  our  government  has  been  to  tolerate,  if  not  delib- 
erately provide  for  a  reasonably  large  body  in  the  lower 
house.  At  the  beginning,  considering  the  population  at  that 
time,  the  number  was  large  when  compared  with  the  num- 
ber that  other  commonwealths  then  fixed,  or  have  since  fixed, 
as  their  representation  in  the  lower  or  popular  branch  of  the 
legislature.  So  I  think  we  may  well  say  that  the  people  in 
this  state  for  all  time  have  been,  and  at  the  present  time  are, 
willing  to  have  a  reasonably  large  house,  but  not  one  as  large 
as  at  present.  It  is  now  too  large.  So  that  the  proposition 
before  the  Convention,  the  desire  of  the  people,  is  not  so 
much  to  change  the  basis  of  representation  as  it  is  to  pro- 
vide for  a  re'duction  of  the  membership  of  the  house.  If  we 
can  contrive  in  some  way  to  make  a  reduction  that  will  reduce 
the  membership  to  300  approximately,  I  believe  the  people 
of  the  state  will  accede  to  that  proposition  and  adopt  it, 
and  then  I  believe  if  we  adhere  to  the  existing  method  of  de- 
termining that  number,  namely,  twice  as  many  for  the  second 
and  additional  representatives  as  that  required  for  the  first, 
the  people  will  be  content  with  that  and  adopt  it. 

Now  it  has  been  figured  out,  as  I  recollect,  by  the  figures 
presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,,  Mr.  Lyford,  tak- 
ing the  basis  for  the  first  at  800,  and  for  the  second  at  2,400, 
— i.  e.,  the  mean  increase  being  1,600, — on  the  present  popu- 
lation it  would  decrease  the  size  of  the  house  to  313.  And 
then,  if  I  recollect  right,  or  have  rightly  enumerated  the 
towns  and  wards  that  would  be  effected  by  reducing  the 
house  to  about  300,  or  perhaps  one  or  two  under  300,  there 
would  be  fourteen  towns  and  wards  which  would  be  affected 
by  increasing  the  mean  proportion  from  1,600  to  2,000.  In 
other  words,  if  you  start  with  the  basis  of  800  for  the  first 
representative  and  2,000  as  the  mean  increasing  proportion, 
making  2,800  for  the  second  and  additional  representatives, 
you  would  get  a  house  of  298  or  299,  as  I  have  examined  the 
figures  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — If  the  gentleman  from  Concord, 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  273 

Mr.  Mitchell,,  will  allow  me,  I  would  say  that  I  gave  no 
figures  on  the  basis  of  2,000  as  the  mean  increasing  number. 
I  think  the  gentleman  must  refer  to  some  figures  given  by 
the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord — No,  gentlemen  of  the  com- 
mittee, I  reached  the  conclusion  by  taking  the  tables  figured 
by  Mr.  Lyf ord  giving  the  population,  and  selecting  the  towns 
and  wards  from  that  tabulation  that  would  be  less  than  the 
required  number  if  the  basis  for  the  second  representative 
was  2,800. 

So  that,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee, 
upon  this  basis,  adhering  to  the  existing  method  of  appor- 
tionment, we  can  work  out  and  decrease  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives by  fixing  the  basis  for  the  first  member  at  800;  for 
the  second  member  at  2,400,  or  1,600  as  the  mean  increasing 
proportion,  which  would  give  us  a  house  of  313,  or  enlarging 
the  second  number  to  2,000,  we  could  reduce  the  house  to 
299,  or  298,  as  I  figure  it. 

Now,  in  the  proposition  which  I  introduced,  there  is  a 
provision  for  prorating  all  towns  above  the  population  of 
400,  and  less  than  the  required  number  for  one,  and  those 
less  than  400  are  to  be  prorated  unless  they  themselves  vote 
to  form  a  district  for  the  purpose  of  electing  representatives. 
That  proposition  is  not  original  with  me.  I  took  it  from  the 
system  adopted  in  the  state  of  Maine  in  providing  for  small 
towns — those  not  having  the  the  requisite  number  of  inhabi- 
tants for  one  representative. 

This  system  will  avoid  the  necessity  of  bringing  together 
a  Constitutional  Convention  again  to  reduce  the  number. 
When  the  increase  in  population  makes  it  necessary  to  change 
this  proportion,  I  have  suggested  that  the  legislature  be 
authorized — when  the  population  of  the  different  municipali- 
ties becomes  so  large  and  the  membership  of  the  house  be- 
comes so  large  that  a  new  apportionment  is  necessary — 
to  reapportion  the  members  upon  exactly  the  same 
basis  that  is  now  suggested.  In  other  words,  fix  at 
18 


274     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  present  time  the  number  of  representatives  to  be  elected 
to  the  legislature,  and  in  the  future,  when,  on  account  of 
the  increase  in  the  population  a  reapportionment  is  required, 
authorize  the  legislature  to  make  it,  adhering  to  the  basis 
that  is  now  fixed,  and  the  basis  that  has  always  been  estab- 
lished and  recognized. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — I  rise  simply  to  ask  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  if  he  will  not  explain  a  little 
more  fully  what  the  requisite  number  would  be  under  his 
system  for  the  third  and  subsequent  representatives.  As  I 
understand  his  explanation,  he  would  keep  the  ratio  as  it  is, 
1,200  for  each  additional  representative.  If  that  is  not  cor- 
rect, I  would  like  to  have  him  state  what  it  is.  Also  I  would 
like  to  inquire  of  the  gentleman  whether  he  can  inform  us 
what  size  house  his  bill  would  produce  as  it  stands  now. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Committee:  I  do  not  in  my  proposition  undertake  to  fix 
the  number  for  the  first  representative.  I  did  fix  the  size 
of  the  house,  but  it  is  purely  arbitrary.  I  fixed  the  number 
301  as  the  size  for  the  house  of  representatives,  and  the  propo- 
sition is  to  work  out  that  result,  namely,  to  have  a  member- 
ship of  the  house  consisting  of  301  by  adhering  to  the  exist- 
ing proportion  between  that  necessary  for  the  first  and  that 
necessary  for  the  second  and  the  subsequent  representatives. 
To  work  out  that  result,  as  I  undertook  to  state  to  the  com- 
mittee, in  order  to  get  a  membership  of  313  and  adhere  to 
the  proportions  already  existing,  you  would  take  800  for  the 
first  representative  and  1,600  as  the  mean  increasing  ratio 
for  the  second  and  subsequent  representatives,  or  2,400  popu- 
lation would  be  necessary  for  the  two  representatives.  Then, 
if  you  desire  to  reduce  the  house  to  a  membership  of  300, 
or  299,  or  298,  as  I  figure  the  tables,  you  can  accomplish  that 
result  by  making  the  mean  increasing  proportion  2,000  in- 
stead of  1,600.  In  other  words,  for  the  two  representatives 
you  must  have  2,800  population. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  275 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — I  merely  rise  to  ask  if  anyone 
has  considered  the  propriety  of  taking  for  the  third  repre- 
sentative a  greater  number  than  is  required  for  the  second 
representative.  It  seems  to  me  that  by  that  course  we  could 
meet  some  of  the  objections  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Lyford.  The  larger  places  do  not  need  as 
many  representatives  in  proportion  to  their  population  as 
the  smaller  towns.  Take,  for  instance,  the  representatives 
from  two  contiguous  wards  of  a  city,  Wards  five  and  six,  in 
Manchester,  for  instance, — I  think  any  one  of  those  repre- 
sentatives would  be  familiar  with  the  requirements  of  Wards 
five  and  six,  whereas  one  gentleman  would  not  be  as  able  to 
represent  two  towns  where  the  population  is  scattered  over 
so  large  a  territory.  If  the  third  representative  was  elected 
by  a  still  larger  population  in  proportion,  it  strikes  me  that 
the  cities  would  even  then  be  well  represented. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Committee:  I  came  here  without  any  definite  plan  for 
the  reduction  of  the  present  house.  I  am  in  favor  of  a  pretty 
large  house.  That,  as  has  been  said  by  the  gentlemen  who 
have  preceded  me,  was  the  course  pursued  by  the  men  who 
founded  the  government.  It  has  worked  well,  so  far  as  I  have 
observed,  and  to-day  we  come  here  to  discuss  this  proposition, 
and  the  objections  which  are  raised  to  the  town  system  and 
to  retaining  it  may  be  reduced  to  these:  First,  it  is  said  that 
there  is  no  legislative  body  in  the  world  so  large  at  the  house 
of  representatives.  Second,  that  it  is  so  large  it  appears  ridic- 
ulous when  compared  with  the  legislatures  of  other  states. 
In  the  third  place,  we  are  cramped  for  room;  we  have  not 
the  requisite  facilities  for  housing  so  many  men. 

Granted  all  these  objections  exist,  and  they  do  exist,  what 
is  the  force  of  those  objections?  Does  any  one  come  hero 
and  say  that  the  legislatures  of  New  Hampshire  have  not 
acted  wisely  in  the  various  acts  which  have  been  passed? 
Does  not  the  legislation  which  has  been  enacted  by  the  legis- 
latures of  New  Hampshire  compare  favorably  with  that  of 


276     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

any  other  state?  It  may  be  conceded  that  perhaps  some 
legislatures  may  have  made  mistakes,  as  has  been  suggested 
here,  but  they  have  been  corrected  by  subsequent  legislation, 
as  you  all  know.  So  far  as  I  have  observed,  I  do  not  know 
of  any  legislation  when  enacted  that  was  detrimental  to  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  if  there  has  been  such  it  has 
been  promptly  corrected.  So  that,  as  far  as  the  house  is  con- 
cerned, we  are  not  suffering  from  maladministration. 

But  it  is  desirable  that  the  house  should  be  reduced  to  some 
extent.  I  do  not  believe  that  the  number  should  be  reduced 
below  300.  It  seems  to  be  generally  conceded  by  all  the 
gentlemen  who  have  addressed  us  that  the  number  should 
remain  about  300 — perhaps  a  few  above  300,  or  may  be  a  few 
less. 

There  have  been  different  plans  proposed  here,  and  they 
certainly  evince  investigation  and  thought  on  the  part  of  the 
gentlemen  who  have  proposed  them.  There  is  the  district 
system,  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford. 
He  has  explained  his  system  to  you,  and  he  has  thoughtfully 
and  carefully  worked  out  his  plan,  and  has  done  it  well,  as 
he  does  all  matters  which  he  takes  under  his  advisement,  and 
he  has  presented  his  views  here  before  you.  Perhaps  it  is 
to  be  said  that  if  that  system  is  adopted  it  may  be  in  some 
respects,  and  perhaps  it  would  be  in  many  respects,  the  most 
equitable  plan  that  could  be  adopted;  but  it  is  manifest  that 
it  is  the  feeling  of  the  majority  of  this  Convention  not  to 
depart  from  the  town  system,  under  which  we  have  lived  so 
long.  While  I  am  not  here  to  criticise  the  plan  presented 
by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  I  must  say  that 
at  the  present  time  it  does  not  seem  to  me  necessary  to  make 
so  radical  a  change  in  our  system.  The  town  system  was 
adopted  by  the  gentlemen  who  made  the  Constitution  and 
founded  this  government,  and,  so  far  as  is  possible  and  prac- 
ticable at  this  time  to  do  so,  we  should  follow  the  plan  which 
was  adopted  by  them. 

Now,  among  other  proposed  amendments  which  have  been 
suggested  is  the  one  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  New- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  277 

port,  Mr.  Barton.  When  I  heard  that  proposition  I  thought 
that  it  was  not  quite  so  fair,  perhaps,  to  the  large  towns  and 
cities  as  it  ought  to  be,  and  so  that  would  be  an  objection. 
The  general  plan  struck  me  favorably,  however.  I  thought 
perhaps  it  would  be  well  to  increase  the  first  factor  from  600 
to  800,  and  then  make  the  next  increasing  factor  2,000. 
That  is,  that  they  should  have  2,000  additional  population 
for  each  representative  after  the  first.  But  on  reflection  it 
seems  to  me  that  there  is  not  so  much  inequality  as  seemed  to 
be  at  first.  We  are  confronted  with  certain  conditions  here 
in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  which  are  beyond  all  dis- 
pute. These  conditions  are  that  in  the  rural  districts  the 
population  is  constantly  falling  off.  In  those  towns  there  is 
not  going  to  be  any  call  for  an  increase  of  representation  if 
you  keep  it  where  it  now  is,  at  600.  Those  towns  are  not 
going  to  be  in  position  to  have  an  additional  number  of  repre- 
sentatives even  on  that  basis.  Instead  of  their  being  in  a 
position  to  send  more  representatives,  their  population  will 
probably  continue  to  decrease,  and  they  are  going  to  be  pro- 
rated, or  a  good  many  of  them  will  be.  Now  the  population 
is  increasing  in  the  large  towns  and  in  the  cities,  and  their 
representation  will  increase.  Under  the  method  proposed, 
they  will  have  additional  representatives  as  their  population 
increases,  so  that  while  under  the  present  regulation  they 
may  not  receive  quite  as  much  consideration  as  the  smaller 
towns  apparently  do,  as  a  general  result,  considering  the  con- 
ditions which  exist  in  the  state,  I  submit  it  is,  on  the  whole, 
a  pretty  fair  proposition. 

I  have  looked  over  the  figures  a  little  to  see  how  that  di- 
vides the  representation.  I  come  as  one  of  the  representa- 
tives from  the  town  of  Exeter.  I  came,  also,  originally, 
from  one  of  the  little  back  towns,  but  the  population  of  that 
little  town  is  falling  off.  It  is  a  prorated  town  to-day,  and, 
as  is  the  case  with  a  large  number  of  these  back  towns,  it  is 
constantly  decreasing  in  population,  so  I  have  the  feeling  that 
while  T  am  here  representing  one  of  the  larger  towns  of  the 
state,  yet  some  consideration  should  be  given  by  me  and  by 


278     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  other  members  of  the  Convention  who  are  from  the  larger 
towns  and  cities  to  these  smaller  towns. 

Now  apply  the  proposition  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  to  Exeter.  While  I  am  a  repre- 
sentative from  that  town,  I  have  not  consulted  with  and  do 
not  know  what  the  feeling  of  my  colleagues  upon  this  ques- 
tion is.  I  do  not  think,  however,  the  citizens  of  Exeter  would 
be  dissatisfied,  but  on  the  other  hand  would  be  perfectly  con- 
tent, with  three  representatives,  and  a  town  of  that  size  can 
get  all  the  representation  it  requires  by  sending  three  men. 
If  we  cannot  select  three  men  big  enough  to  come  here  and 
take  care  of  us  we  might  as  well,  as  the  saying  is,  "  go  out  of 
business." 

Applying  the  rule  to  the  town  of  Claremont,  which  is  the 
largest  town,  as  I  recollect  it,  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire, 
I  think  they  lose  one  representative,  or  perhaps  two.  As 
suggested  by  a  gentleman,  they  now  have  six,  and  they  would 
then  have  three  representatives.  I  do  not  know  how  many 
they  want  in  that  town,  I  only  speak  for  Exeter;  but  probably 
three  good  men,  such  as  they  have  selected  to  come  to  this 
Constitutional  Convention,  could  take  care  of  the  town  of 
Claremont  in  any  legislature  that  we  shall  have,  and  do  it 
well. 

Then  the  town  of  Newport,  which  is  the  next  to  the  largest 
town  in  the  county  of  Sullivan,  would  lose  one  representative 
and  would  have  two.  And  I  believe  that,  going  through  the 
state,  upon  the  figures  as  they  have  been  tabulated  and  pre- 
sented here,  the  proportion  of  loss  to  the  larger  towns  would 
be  about  the  same. 

As  I  figure  it,  under  the  rule  which  has  been  suggested  Ly 
the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  the  county  of 
Rockingham  would  lose  thirteen  representatives,  and  on  the 
basis  of  800  and  2,000  it  would  be  twenty-three.  But  I  am 
not  here  to  insist  on  any  special  standard.  I  am  willing  to 
concede  something  to  these  larger  towns  if  they  feel  as  though 
it  is  unjust  to  make  the  basis  for  the  first  representative  600, 
and  put  it  at  800.  It  may  be  the  sense  of  the  Convention 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  279 

that  it  should  be  800  and,  2,000,  and  if  that  is  so,  it  would 
certainly  be  satisfactory  to  me.  I  wish,  however,  simply  to 
say  that  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Newport, 
Mr.  Barton,  is  a  fair  one,  taking  into  consideration  the  con  • 
ditions  existing  in  the  state.  If  you  adopt  the  rule  of  GOO 
and  2,000,  Rockingham  county  would  lose  thirteen. 

Then,  take  it  in  Strafford  county.  On  the  basis  of  600  and 
2,000,  it  would  lose  seven,  and  on  the  basis  of  800  and  2,000 
it  would  lose  only  one  additional  representative.  That  is, 
the  population  of  the  towns  is  such  that  they  would  lose  only 
one  representative  in  the  county  if  you  should  raise  the  num- 
ber for  the  first  representative  from  600  to  800,  so,  under  the 
conditions  existing  in  that  county  to-day,  it  makes  little  dif- 
ference whether  you  call  the  first  figure  800  and  the  second 
2,000,  or  the  first  figure  600  and  the  second  2,000. 

In  Strafford  county  they  would  lose  seven  on  the  basis  of 
600  and  2,000,  and  one  additional  on  the  basis  of  800  and 
2,000. 

In  Belknap  county,  as  I  have  figured  it,  and  I  think  I  am 
correct  although  I  may  have  made  a  mistake,  on  the  basis  of 
600  and  2,000,  there  would  be  a  loss  of  two,  and  on  the  basis 
of  800  and  2,000  a  loss  of  five. 

In  Merrimack  county  there  would  be  a  loss  on  the  basis 
of  600  and  2,000  of  ten,  and  on  the  basis  of  800  and  2,000  of 
eighteen.  It  makes  quite  a  difference  in  some  of  the  coun- 
ties, because  they  have  a  number  of  small  towns  that  have 
600  population,  or  a  little  over,  and  if  you  place  the  number 
for  the  first  representative  at  600  they  would  still  be  able  to 
send  one  representative,  but  if  you  call  it  800  it  strikes  off 
quite  a  number  of  those  towns,  whereas  in  some  counties,  like 
Strafford,  the  population  is  such  that  it  makes  but  little 
difference. 

In  Hillsborough  county,  on  the  basis  of  600  and  2,000  they 
would  lose  twenty-nine;  on  the  basis  of  800  and  2,000,  thirty- 
six. 

In  Cheshire  county,  on  the  basis  of  600  and  2,000,  they 
would  lose  six,  and  on  the  basis  of  800  and  2,000,  nine. 


280     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

In  Sullivan  county,  on  the  basis  of  600  and  2,000,  there 
is  a  loss  of  three;  011  800  and  2,000,  it  would  be  the  same. 
That  is,  the  representatives  that  they  would  send  on  one 
basis  or  the  other  would  be  the  same  for  that  county,  and 
therefore  it  will  not  make  any  difference  to  them  which  basis 
is  adopted. 

In  Grafton  county,  on  the  basis  of  600  and  2,000,  seven 
would  be  lost,  and  on  the  basis  of  800  and  2,000  there  would 
be  a  loss  of  fifteen. 

In  Coos  county,  on  the  basis  of  600  and  2,000,  there  would 
be  a  loss  of  six,  and  on  800  and  2,000,  a  loss  of  ten. 

Now  the  figures  have  been  presented  to  you  here  and  are 
before  you  in  regard  to  the  number  of  prorated  towns.  On 
the  basis  of  600  inhabitants  for  the  purpose  of  choosing  one 
representative,  there  are  sixty-nine  of  those  towns;  but  rais- 
ing the  number  to  800,  it  makes  forty-two  more  towns  which 
would  have  to  be  prorated,  or  111  in  all,  in  place  of  sixty- 
nine. 

As  I  said  in  the  outset,  I  am  not  here  strenuously  advo- 
cating what  the  ratio  should  be,  but  it  seems  to  me  that 
whatever  ratio  is  adopted,  the  true  system  is  the  system  which 
was  adopted  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution.  There  are 
a  great  many  things  to  be  said  in  its  favor.  In  the  first  place, 
it  is  more  democratic,  and  you  secure  the  representatives  from 
a  wider  territory.  You  choose  representatives  who  are  in 
sympathy  with  the  ideas  of  their  locality  and  who  know  what 
their  towns  need.  These  back  towns  are  places  of  a  good  deal 
of  importance.  "VVe  have  a  good  deal  of  summer  business  in 
those  towns,  and  there  are  matters  of  consequence  that  come 
before  the  legislature  in  every  session  relating  to  those  town?, 
and  if  we  do  not  have  some  one  in  the  legislature  who  knows 
their  needs  and  who  is  fully  acquainted  with  them,  somebody 
will  have  to  be  sent  there  in  order  to  inform  the  legislature 
as  to  what  is  needed  in  those  localities.  This  town  system  is 
a  democratic  system,  and  is  a  system  required  for  the  bene- 
fit of  the  towns  and  the  state,  and  I  say,  gentlemen  of  the 
Convention,  that  those  towns  should  be  represented  so  far 
as  is  practicable. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  281 

Now,  then,  there  is  another  thing  in  regard  to  this  system. 
I  know  it  sounds  strange,  perhaps,  to  most  men  to  have  a 
man  stand  up  here  and  argue  in  favor  of  this  system,  and  that 
it  ought  to  be  preserved  because  it  affords  a  good  school  for 
the  people  and  one  worth  all  it  costs,  and  for  that  reason  if 
for  nothing  else,  we  should  retain  it.  If  I  stood  here  alone 
upon  this  proposition  you  might  laugh  at  me,  because,  per- 
haps, my  opinion  would  not  carry  much  weight  in  this 
matter.  I  am  not  much  of  a  statesman,  never  having  been 
in  the  legislature  but  once,  and  that  was  a  good  many  years 
ago,  so  perhaps  I  have  forgotten  all  that  I  learned  back  in 
1876;  but  when  this  proposition  has  been  advanced  by  such 
men  as  the  late  Chief  Justice  Doe  and  the  late  Gilman  Mars- 
ton,  I  think  you  will  agree  that  it  is  a  proposition  that  should 
be  well  considered  and  weighed,  and  it  is  one  that,  with  those 
gentlemen  behind  it,  I  feel  as  though  I  had  something  to 
fall  back  upon.  I  know  what  the  sentiment  of  those  gentle- 
men was,  because  they  have  stated  it  a  great  many  times, 
and  my  old  partner  would  say  to  whoever  suggested  that  on 
account  of  the  increased  expense  and  the  difficulty  in  trans- 
acting business  in  a  legislature  of  three  or  four  hundred 
men,  which  might  as  well  all  be  done  by  a  legislature  of  one 
hundred — he  would  say  that  it  was  worth  all  it  cost  as  a 
school.  And  how  is  it.  When  I  came  here  to  the  legisla- 
ture in  1876,  from  one  of  the  back  towns,  I  had  seen  none 
of  the  great  men  of  the  state,  and  had  probably  heard  of  no 
more  than  a  half  dozen  of  them.  The  rest  of  them  were  all 
unknown  to  me.  I  saw  these  men,  and  I  heard  what  they 
had  to  say,  I  learned  something,  and  I  got  a  great  many  ideas 
from  them.  I  am  only  speaking  now,  of  course,  of  my  own 
personal  experience.  I  learned  things,  and  I  know  that  it 
was  a  benefit  to  me,  and  I  know  it  is  a  benefit  to  other  men 
who  come  here  from  the  small  towns.  They  learn  about 
what  is  being  done  and  how  to  do  it.  They  learn  about  the 
machinery  of  government  and  what  the  state  needs,  and  how 
to  supply  those  needs,  and  all  those  things  that  are  necessary 
and  essential  in  the  law-making  body  of  the  state.  And  not 


282    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

only  is  it  profitable  to  the  gentlemen  from  the  back  towns 
to  come  here,  but  it  is  profitable  to  the  gentlemen  who  sit 
on  the  front  rows,  to  the  statesmen  of  the  legislature  who 
are  here  year  after  year,  and  who  lead  the  sentiment  and  the 
course  of  legislation.  These  men  learn  some  things  from 
the  gentlemen  from  the  back  towns.  Some  farmer  gets  up 
in  the  legislature  and  makes  a  proposition,  or  a  motion,  a 
motion  or  a  suggestion  that  technically  is  all  out  of  order, 
but  there  is  something  in  it,  and  he  wants  to  get  it  before  the 
legislature  and  finally  does  so. 

He  hits  what  he  is  after  right  in  the  eye;  the  legislature 
concludes  that  the  gentleman  from  Cranberry  Corner  is 
right.  So  the  statements  of  all  others,  when  he  advances  his 
proposition,  are  voted  down,  sometimes  perhaps  unjustly, 
and  sometimes  justly,  but  all  learn  something — they  learn 
that  the  front  row  does  not  have  it  all  their  own-  way.  And 
by  learning  that,  the  front  row  don't  lose  anything.  It  is  a 
good  thing,  as  good  in  a  way  as  a  college  education.  It  is 
the  atrition  of  men's  minds,  one  with  another,  that  helps  in 
the  education  in  a  college  and  also  in  the  education  that  is 
received  here.  If  a  man  sends  his  boy  to  college  and  that 
boy  has  ability  and  some  power  of  observation,  he  comes 
out  with  the  cobwebs  pretty  well  rubbed  off  from  his  brain, 
and  the  same  thing  takes  place  with  the  gentlemen  who  come 
here  to  the  legislature.  So  I  say  it  is  a  good  school.  At  first 
blush  you  might  think  that  this  proposition  didn't  amount 
to  anything.  But  I  say,  gentlemen,  it  amounts  to  a  good 
deal.  So  here  is  a  reason  why  the  suggestion  that  it  is  not 
essential  for  the  state  to  have  such  a  large  legislature,  such 
a  large  house  of  representatives,  ought  to  be  well  considered. 
We  should  not  reduce  the  house  to  a  very  small  number,  but 
it  should  be  continued  with  a  reasonably  large  number  of 
members. 

I  have  talked  longer  than  I  intended  in  regard  to  this 
subject,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  we  should,  on  the  whole, 
adopt  the  town  system  upon  the  basis  presented  by  the 
gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  and  perhaps  the 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  283 

same  basis  is  also  embodied  in  other  resolutions  that  have 
been  presented  here.  I  presume  they  come  practically  to 
the  same  thing,  only  I  have  not  had  the  opportunity  of  look- 
ing them  over  or  noting  their  results  in  regard  to  the  figures. 
If  that  is  all  there  is  to  it,  it  seems  to  me  we  ought  to  agree 
to  that  proposition  and  conclude  that  part  of  the  business, 
finish  up  the  other  business,  and  go  home.  We  have  had 
a  great  many  matters  brought  to  the  attention  of  the  Con- 
vention, and  most  of  them  are  all  right,  but  we  cannot  adopt 
all  of  them  and  expect  the  people  to  ratify  them,  because, 
as  was  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Chandler,  on  the  first  day  of  the  Convention,  if  we  submit 
a  long  string  of  amendments  for  the  consideration  of  the 
people  they  will  not  adopt  any  of  them.  Consider  how  it  is 
yourselves.  We  go  to  the  town  meeting,  and  a  paper  of 
twenty  or  thirty  amendments  to  the  Constitution  is  pre- 
sented. What  does  Mr.  A,  or  B,  or  C,  know  about  them, 
and  when  he  does  not  know,  what  is  he  to  do  ?  He  will  think 
that  the  best  thing  to  do  is  to  do  nothing,  and  I  believe  that 
that  is  what  he  will  do  if  we  furnish  too  many  amendments 
for  his  ratification. 

So,  then,  I  say  let  us  agree  upon  some  plan  which  will  be 
fair  and  just,  and  I  believe  if  we  do  that  the  people  will 
ratify  our  action.  In  what  I  have  said  I  have  not  intended, 
and  do  not  intend,  to  cast  any  reflection  upon  the  propo- 
sitions that  have  been  submitted  here  for  the  purpose  of 
amending  the  Constitution  in  the  several  respects  proposed; 
but  I  must  say  that  a  great  many  of  them  will  be,  and  will 
have  to  be,  rejected  by  this  Convention  if  we  expect  to  have 
anything  done  by  the  people  at  the  polls. 

It  is  suggested,  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that  I  did  not 
state  how  many  representatives  the  house  would  consist  of 
under  the  plan  which  has  been  suggested  here  and  which  I 
approve.  Mr.  Barton  has  been  through  with  the  figures  and 
printed  them  and  they  are  before  you,  so  you  can  verify  his 
statements.  Under  his  proposition,  I  think  there  would  be 
317  members  of  the  house,  and  if  it  is  placed  on  the  basis  of 


284     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

800  and  2,000  there  will  be  a  little  less — I  imagine  a  little 
under  300;  but  whether  fifteen  above  or  eight  or  ten  below 
300  is  not  very  material,  but  it  is  advisable,  I  think,  to  fix 
upon  a  number  somewhere  near  300. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough — I  had  a  few  words  more  that 
I  designed  to  say  upon  this  matter  before  we  came  to  action. 
It  seems  to  me  that  if  the  several  gentlemen  who  have 
presented  plans  here  design  to  be  heard,  and  we  are  to  follow 
out  the  suggestions  which  have  been  made  that  a  vote  in 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  may  be  taken  so  this  matter 
may  go  to  the  proper  standing  committee  to-morrow,  some 
of  us  must  rise  and  address  ourselves  to  the  subject  under 
consideration  now,  notwithstanding  the  house  may  not  be 
quite  full  in  consequence  of  the  condition  of  the  roads. 

I  am  quite  pleased,  for  when  I  presented  my  proposition 
the  other  day  before  the  house,  I  stood  practically  alone  in 
the  suggestion  which  I  made  in  regard  to  keeping  the  popu- 
lation for  the  first  representative  at  600,  and  also  for  the 
increase  which  I  gave  as  3,000.  I  presented  my  plans  which 
I  had  drawn,  giving  the  house  of  representatives  precisely 
the  same  as  it  stands  now,  by  the  basis  of  600  for  the  first 
and  1,200  additional  for  the  increase.  I  also  figured  it  upon 
the  basis  of  2,000  for  the  increase,  which  is  Mr.  Barton's  bill 
exactly,  and  when  I  came  here  it  was  with  the  resolution 
drafted  which  I  intended  to  present  to  the  house,  on  the 
basis  of  an  increase  of  2,000.  But  before  I  did  that,  Mr. 
Barton  presented  the  same  proposition,  and  then  I  put  in 
my  resolution  upon  the  basis  of  a  3,000  increase.  I  did  it 
in  order  that  this  whole  matter  might  be  before  the  Con- 
vention, and  when  these  tables  were  printed  every  member 
of  the  Convention  could  see  exactly  what  the  facts  were. 

Every  one  knows  that  upon  the  present  basis  of  600 
population  for  the  first  representative  and  1,200  additional 
for  each  additional  representative,  the  present  number  of 
representatives  would  be  347.  Of  course  there  must  be  added 
to  that  forty-six  representatives,  which  is  the  number  that 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  285 

has  been  returned  from  the  prorated  towns,  which  makes 
the  entire  legislature  which  will  meet  here  next  month  393, 
and  that,  I  find  from  the  secretary  of  state,  is  exact.  Now 
upon  the  basis  of  an  increase  of  2,000  I  have  it,  and  it  is 
correct  because  it  has  been  examined  and  re-examined  and  it 
is  exact — the  whole  number  given  in  my  figures  under  that 
will  be  271.  That  is,  keeping  the  600  basis  for  the  first 
representative  and  2,000  for  each  additional  one.  To  that, 
of  course,  must  be  added  the  forty-six  representatives  which 
come  from  the  prorated  towns,  and  that  will  give  you,  as 
has  been  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Bar- 
ton, 317. 

Xow,  thinking  that  perhaps  it  might  be  the  desire  to  reduce 
the  legislature  still  more,  and  that  the  Convention  might 
think  317  too  large,  as,  if  your  population  increases  it  will 
before  a  great  many  years  be  again  as  large  as  it  is  now,  I 
have  carried  out  other  figures  on  the  basis  of  a  3,000  increase 
for  the  second  representative.  On  that  basis  you  would 
have  240  returned  from  the  towns  and  wards  of  the  cities, 
and  to  that  of  course  must  be  added  the  forty-six  that  come 
from  the  prorated  towns,  and  that  would  give  you  a  legis- 
lature of  286,  which  is  very  close  to  the  number  that  the 
gentlemen  have  hit  upon  in  the  several  plans  presented  here 
— a  legislature  of  about  300.  That  gives  you,  at  the  present 
time,  a  legislature  of  286,  and  when  the  next  census  is  taken 
on  account  of  the  increase  of  population  you  would  undoubt- 
edly have  a  trifle  in  excess  of  300,  or  just  about  300.  For 
my  own  part,  I  am  not  certain  that  this  is  not  the  better  plan 
— that  the  ratio  of  3,000  for  the  second  and  each  additional 
representative  should  be  adopted  instead  of  2,000,  although 
I  originally  intended  to  present  my  proposed  amendment 
with  a  2,000  increase. 

I  am  in  favor  of  either  one  of  these  propositions — that  for 
a  3,000  increase  or  that  for  a  2,000  increase.  I  am  perfectly 
willing  to  concede,  if  the  gentlemen  from  the  cities  are  will- 
ing to  do  their  share — I  am  willing  to  concede  to  the  reduc- 
tion for  the  number  of  the  population  necessary  for  trie 


286     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

second  representative  from  a  3,000  to  a  2,000  increase.  Now 
let  us  see  how  that  will  affect  us.  A  great  many  of  the 
gentlemen  from  the  cities  who  have  spoken  to  me  seem  to 
think  that  will  discriminate  unfairly  against  the  cities.  Take 
my  own  town,  which  is  the  town  of  Peterborough,  and  which 
loses  one,  and  which  could  not  have  but  one  under  this  plan 
for  one  hundred  years  at  least,  I  think  that  our  town  loses 
as  much,  or  more,  in  proportion  to  its  representatives  as 
any  of  the  cities. 

Here  in  Merrimack  county  at  the  present  time,  the  city 
of  Concord  has  ten  representatives.  Is  that  correct,  Mr. 
Mitchell? 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester — That  is  Portsmouth. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough — Portsmouth,  I  would  say,  has 
ten.  I  think  that  is  correct.  Under  the  basis  of  a  2,000 
increase  they  would  have  eight,  and  would  lose  two  repre- 
sentatives only,  or  about  one-fifth  of  its  representation,  while 
the  town  of  Peterborough  under  the  increase  from  1,200  to 
2,000  would  lose  one,  or  one  half  of  its  representation.  The 
town  of  Hillsborough  would  lose  one  half,  and  the  town  of 
Claremont,  I  think,  would  lose  two  representatives,  and  so 
with  all  the  larger  towns  in  the  state.  It  would  be  against 
those  larger  towns  more  than  against  the  cities  that  this  plan 
would  operate.  But  we  are  not  afraid  of  it.  We  come  here 
with  the  idea,  as  has  been  suggested,  that  these  small  towns 
of  600  inhabitants  need  the  favor  of  the  people  of  this  state 
in  this  matter  of  representation. 

Now  how  would  this  plan  affect  the  city  of  Manchester, 
which  now  has  forty-nine  representatives  on  the  basis  of  600 
for  the  first  and  1,200  increase.  Under  this  bill  of  my  friend 
from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  Manchester  would  have  thirty- 
one.  She  has  a  population  of  56,000,  or  a  little,  over,  and 
that  would  give  her  a  representative  certainly  to  every  3,000 
of  her  population,  while  Peterborough  has  but  one.  Can 
she  complain  that  she  will  only  have  31  representatives  with 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  287 

a  population  of»  56,000,  which  she  will  have  under  the  bill 
of  my  friend  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton? 

The  city  of  Nashua  has  twenty  at  the  present  time,  and 
under  that  arrangement  she  will  come  here  with  ten,. as  her 
population  is  a  trifle  rising  20,000.  Can  she  find  fault? 
Towns  of  3,000  inhabitants  come  here  and  are  willing  to  give 
the  towns  of  only  606  inhabitants  a  representative  while 
such  towns  with  3,000  inhabitants  would  only  have  one  repre- 
sentative. Can  Xashua  find  fault  when  she  will  have  a  repre- 
sentative for  a  little  over  2,000  in  number  of  her  population? 
She  would  have  ten  under  the  Barton  bill  where  she  has 
twenty  now. 

I  hope  before  you  decide  on  this  matter  you  will  look  it 
squarely  in  the  face,  and  that  you  will  be  willing  to  show 
charity  to  these  small  towns. 

The  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Eastman,  has  suggested 
a  basis  of  800  for  the  first  representative.  Take  it  upon  that 
basis,  there  are  forty  odd  towns  which  are  just  now  able  to 
send  a  representative  here  that  would  be  taken  out  of  those 
towns  sending  a  representative  each  year  and  be  prorated. 
The  towns  of  Hancock,  Bennington,  Francestown,  Lynde- 
borough,  and  Greenfield  are  examples  of  this  class.  They  run 
in  population  from  605  to  690,  and  upon  the  basis  of  800 
of  course  they  would  all  become  prorated  towns.  And  they 
are  important  towns,  gentlemen,  and  their  representatives 
have  the  interests  of  this  state  at  heart  as  deeply  as  any 
representative  that  may  come  from  the  cities  or  the  larger 
towns.  It  is  right  that  these  small  towns  should  have  this 
representation,  and  they  are  then  not  represented  any  bet- 
ter than  the  large  towns  or  cities  are,  taking  all  the  condi- 
tions under  which  they  exist  under  consideration. 

It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  as  well  prepared  to  enter  upon 
this  matter  now  as  we  ever  shall  be.  I  am  perfectly  satisfied 
that  it  is  the  disposition  of  this  Convention  to  retain  this 
town  system,  and  I  am  just  as  well  satisfied  that  it  is  the 
disposition  of  this  Convention  that  the  basis  for  the  .first  rep- 
resentative shall  be  600.  And  it  is  my  belief  that  we  may 


288     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

talk  and  discuss  this  matter  during  the  whole  time  that  we 
are  here  and  we  will  not  be  able  to  submit  any  other  propo- 
sition than  one  on  the  basis  of  600  for  the  first  representative 
that  will  be  satisfactory  to  our  constituents.  I  will  concede 
the  2,000  for  the  second  representative  instead  of  3,000, 
which  is  on  the  line  of  Mr.  Barton's  bill. 

Mr.  Penniman  of  Plainfield — I  think  in  this  excellent  table 
of  Mr.  Scott's  there  are  two  errors.  There  are  six  representa- 
tives from  Laconia,  and  I  think  there  are  seven  in  the 
table;  and  also  there  is  an  error  with  reference  to  the  town 
of  Northumberland,  in  Coos  county.  There  should  be  two 
representatives  from  that  town  instead  of  one,  and  I  think 
the  number  of  representatives  elected  from  prorated  towns 
is  forty-four  instead  of  forty-six,  which  would  make  the  num- 
ber in  the  house  just  the  same. 

Mr.  Ashley  of  Dorchester — I  have  come  from  one  of  the 
poorest  towns  in  the  state,  a  town  that  is  heavily  in  debt,  and 
we  feel  that  we  ought  to  be  represented,  of  course,  as  well 
as  others.  The  conditions  which  exist  in  the  town  I  come 
from  are  similar  to  those  that  exist  in  nearly  all  the  prorated 
towns,  except,  perhaps,  our  debt  may  be  a  little  larger.  I 
think  like  this  in  the  matter  before  us,  that  the  cities  cannot 
afford  to  ignore  these  small  places.  We  are  small,  and  if  we 
are  crowded  much  further,  and  you  keep  us  without  any 
better  representation,  or  with  less,  there  would  not  be  much 
of  anything  left  as  far  as  representation  is  concerned,  and 
a  very  small  push  would  put  us  out  of  the  way  entirely.  "We 
have  as  good  soil  in  our  town  as  anywhere,  even  though  we 
cannot  be  represented  as  other  places  are.  We  still  have  in 
our  hearts  the  welfare  of  the  state  and  of  the  community  in 
which  we  live,  and  we  still  think  it  is  just  that  we  should  be 
represented.  We  think  that  we  ought  to  be  encouraged  in 
this  matter.  A  little  encouragement  goes  a  good  ways  with 
us.  We  did  get  some  little  encouragement  from  the  state. 
The  legislature  appropriated  us  some  school  money,  and  we 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  289 

added  to  that  an  appropriation  of  our  own.  The  very  first 
appropriation  we  got  for  our  schools  we  voted  to  raise  more 
ourselves  rather  than  to  take  our  usual  expenses  out  of  this 
money.  We  began  to  hire  a  better  class  of  teachers,  and 
then  things  did  not  seem  to  correspond,  and  we  had  to  fix 
up  our  schoolhouses,  we  clapboarded  and  painted  and  papered 
the  walls  of  our  school  buildings,  and  put  curtains  over  the 
windows  and  put  in  modern  seats.  We  had  a  little  encour- 
agement, and  we  did  more  for  ourselves  on  account  of  this 
encouragement  than  we  otherwise  would  or  could  have  done, 
and  so  we  ask  you  to  give  us  what  encouragement  you  can, 
if  not  from  a  sense  of  justice,  then  out  of  courtesy,  toward 
the  small  towns  of  the  state. 

Mr.  Woodbury  of  Bedford — I  did  not  expect  to  speak  at 
all  to-day,  but  there  have  been  some  questions  raised  by  the 
speech  of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  that  it  seems  to  me  we 
ought  to  consider  a  little  more  fully  than  we  have  yet  done. 
I  come  from  a  country  town  that  under  any  arrangement 
which  has  yet  been  proposed  will  be  entitled  to  one  repre- 
sentative and  only  one.  The  population  in  my  town  is  a 
little  over  1,100. 

When  I  came  here,  I  came  with  the  general  impression  that 
the  house  was  too  large  and  ought  to  be  reduced,  but  it 
seemed  to  me  that  there  would  be  some  one  here  who  would 
be  able  to  show  affirmatively  why  it  was  too  large,  and  would 
show  also  affirmatively  what  number  would  be  sufficiently 
large  and  not  more  than  sufficiently  large.  If  the  present 
house  of  about  400  members  is  too  large,  what  makes  it  too 
large?  Is  it  because  the  legislation  enacted  here  costs  more 
to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  than  it  should,  or  is  it  because 
it  takes  more  time  to  get  legislation  worked  through  so 
numerous  a  body  than  should  be  the  case?  It  appears  that 
in  Massachusetts,  where  the  legislature  is  much  smaller  than 
here,  they  sit  for  six  months  in  every  twelve.  The  length 
of  their  session  is  about  twice  the  length  of  our  session,  and 
while  they  are  sitting  six  months  in  every  twelve,  to  enact 
19 


290    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  legislation  necessary  for  Massachusetts,  we  are  sitting 
three  months  in  every  twenty-four  to  do  the  same  for  our 
state.  If  the  legislation  costs  more  than  it  should  in  money, 
it  seems  to  me  it  is  made  entirely  clear  in  debate  here  that 
an  equivalent  has  been  found  in  the  educational  benefits  that 
accrue  to  the  members,  and  that  is  a  sufficient  reason  why  it 
might  well  cost  more  than  what  would  be  just  sufficient  to 
get  the  work  done  and  no  more  than  sufficient. 

If  the  purpose  is  to  find  an  arbitrary  number  entirely  irre- 
spective of  the  representative  idea  on  which  the  make-up  of 
the  legislature  has  rested,  which  would  be  sufficient  to  do 
the  work,  that  is  one  thing.  Judge  Aldrich  has  pointed  out 
that  the  German  parliament,  sitting  for  40,000,000  of  peo- 
ple, is  a  body  of  practically  the  same  size  as  we  have  in  this 
state,  about  400.  By  a  parity  of  reasoning  then,  that  would 
bring  our  legislature  down  to  perhaps  ten  or  twelve  mem- 
bers. But  if  we  are  not  to  turn  to  some  arbitrary  number 
as  a  number  entirely  sufficient  to  do  the  work  which  is  to 
be  done,  where  shall  we  get  information  as  to  just  what 
should  be  the  size  of  the  house?  I  think  that  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  has  pointed  the  road  out  to  us. 
We  have  rested  purely  upon  the  theory  which  the  fathers 
declared  when  they  first  laid  down  our  Constitution.  The 
representative  idea  that  they  set  forth  was  to  have  delegates 
from  every  one  of  these  communities,  these  little  political 
entities  scattered  all  over  the  state,  that  each  small  political 
body  might  select  one  from  their  number  and  send  him  to 
speak  and  vote  for  it  in  the  general  assembly.  There  are 
objections  to  such  a  course  at  the  present  time,  but  I  believe 
that  the  objection  of  the  expense  involved  is  a  comparatively 
trifling  objection.  The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Ly- 
ford,  has  shown  us  the  way  we  can  go  on  without  the  expense 
of  having  more  than  300  men  to  do  the  work;  but  what  is 
the  reason  why  he  stops  at  300?  Why  is  not  200  a  good 
number  instead  of  300,  if  we  depart  from  the  idea  of  repre- 
sentation by  the  town  system.  The  gentleman  from  Peter- 
borough, Mr.  Scott,  has  pointed  out  that  the  delegates  from 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  291 

the  country  towns  are  equal  in  information  and  in  ability  to 
the  delegates  from  any  other  places  in  the  state;  but  after 
all,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  is  not  a  question  of  information  and 
ability  in  debate,  it  is  a  question  of  the  number  of  votes.  If 
we  are  to  punish  the  big  cities  for  being  so  big  by  reducing 
the  number  of  their  representatives  here,  will  that  be  just 
and  right?  Will  it  be  just  to  submit  them  to  the  sacrifice 
of  their  voting  powrer,  a  loss  which  under  some  conditions 
would  expose  them  to  great  danger. 

The  legislature  which  is  to  meet  next  month  is  to  consider, 
very  likely,  a  bill  which  will  be  a  complete  departure  from 
our  past  methods  of  regulating  the  sale  of  intoxicating 
liquors.  The  conditions  which  surround  that  traffic  in  Man- 
chester and  in  the  larger  cities  of  the  state  are  entirely  differ- 
ent from  those  which  surround  it  in  the  country  towns,  and 
such  cities  need  relief  from  the  present  conditions;  but  they 
may  not  have  sufficient  voting  power  to  obtain  such  relief 
if  they  are  sacrificed  to  the  smaller  towns.  It  will  be  quite 
difficult  to  explain  to  the  gentlemen  from  our  country  towns 
the  evils  that  go  on  in  Manchester  because  of  the  prohibitory 
law,  or  the  failure  to  enforce  it.  The  gentlemen  from  the 
country  towns  may  be  the  equal  or  the  superior  of  the  gentle- 
men from  the  city,  in  information  and  ability,  but  the  ques- 
tion with  reference  to  representation  is  not  one  of  informa- 
tion and  ability,  it  is  one  of  voting  power. 

Now  what  relief  can  be  given  both  to  the  men  from  the 
country  towns  and  to  those  from  the  city.  It  evidently  will 
be  difficult  if  not  impossible  to  change  the  basis  of  selecting 
our  representatives  from  the  town  system  to  the  district  sys- 
tem. It  is  equally  clear  that  this  Convention  will  not  vote 
to  greatly  depart  from  the  present  number  of  the  represen- 
tatives in  the  house,  and  it  is  equally  clear  that  a  reduction 
of  100  is  not  a  sufficient  reduction  from  the  present  number 
of  the  house  to  bring  us  to  an  ideal  situation.  And  so,  for 
the  sake  of  enlightenment  on  this  subject,  I  hope  some  man 
will  tell  us  why  it  is  necessary  to  reduce  the  house  at  all, 
and  if  it  is  necessary  to  reduce  the  house,  to  what  extent  it 


292    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

should  be  reduced,  and  why  it  should  be  reduced  to  that 
extent.  Why  will  it  not  be  better  to  let  the  number  in  the 
house  continue  at  393,  as  we  find  it,  instead  of  making  so 
paltry  a  diminution  as  reduces  it  to  about  313. 

Mr.  Collins  of  Portsmouth — I  am  in  the  same  frame  of 
mind  as  the  gentleman  who  has  just  spoken.  I  wish  to  know, 
and  would  like  some  of  the  men  who  can  tell  us  and  who 
have  submitted  propositions  for  the  reduction  of  the  house, 
why  it  is  necessary  to  reduce  the  house,  and  then  I  will  be 
in  a  position  to  consider  both  sides  of  the  question. 

Mr.  Wentworth  of  Plymouth — I  think  this  question  has 
been  quite  thoroughly  discussed,  but  there  is  just  one  or  two 
things  I  wish  to  mention.  The  gentleman  who  has  recently 
spoken  suggested  that  perhaps  the  cities  would  not  be  repre- 
sented as  fully  as  they  ought  to  be,  and  he  cited  the  liquor 
question  as  one  of  importance  to  the  cities.  I  think  if  we 
stop  to  think  we  will  see  that  the  cities  are  and  will  be  fairly 
well  represented  as  compared  with  the  outlying  towns.  The 
city  of  Manchester  has  forty-nine  representatives,  while  the 
county  of  Grafton  has  but  forty-two  representatives,  and  yet 
the  county  of  Grafton  casts  211  votes  more  than  the  city  of 
Manchester,  and  has  seven  less  representatives.  So  I  think 
the  cities  have  no  fault  to  find  if  their  representation  is 
reduced  more  in  proportion  than  that  of  the  outlying  towns. 
Grafton  casts  211  votes  for  each  representative  while  the 
city  of  Manchester  casts  only  197  for  each  representative, 
so  it  seems  to  me  that  from  that  point  of  view  the  cities 
have  no  fault  to  find  with  their  representation. 

One  thing  further.  I  think  it  has  been  proven  that  the 
outlying  towns  vote  for  as  wise  laws  on  the  liquor  question 
as  those  the  cities  vote  for,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  we  have 
no  right  to  say  that  a  city  will  not  be  fairly  represented.  As 
to  correcting  laws  which  now  exist  on  the  liquor  question,  I 
think  this  question  has  not  been .  voted  upon  in  the  legis- 
lature for  several  years, — whether  we  should  have  a  license 
or  a  prohibitory  law, — but  the  gentlemen  from  the  city,  as 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  293 

I  understand  it,  have  been  advocating  a  prohibitory  law  up 
to  the  present  time  as  well  as  the  gentlemen  from  the  coun- 
try, and  I  think  you  will  find  a  great  many  representatives 
from  the  smaller  towns  who  will  come  here  next  month  with 
the  idea  that  they  will  vote  for  the  license  law.  I  know  that 
is  so  from  many  of  the  small  towns,  I  know  that  the  repre- 
sentatives who  have  been  elected  are  in  favor  of  license,  and 
will  vote  for  it,  so  the  cities  will  have  nothing  to  fear  upon 
that  score. 

I  believe  that  the  bill  of  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr. 
Barton,  offers  a  pretty  fair  measure.  We  should  remember 
that  New  Hampshire  does  not  want  to  discourage  the  small 
towns.  I  don't  believe  it  wants  to  discourage  the  people 
irom  living  in  the  rural  districts  of  the  state.  New  Hamp- 
shire is  made  up  of  a  large  amount  of  territory  which  is  not 
thickly  settled,  but  from  which  a  large  amount  of  business 
comes  in  the  shape  of  summer  visitors,  and  we  want  to  en- 
courage the  living  in  these  rural  communities,  we  want  to 
encourage  this  summer  business.  The  gentlemen  who  live 
in  the  city  cannot  appreciate  what  it  is  to  live  in  the  small 
country  communities,  and  perhaps  not  get  your  mail  for  a 
week  or  a  fortnight,  but  if  you  should  go  there  for  awhile 
and  live  you  would  appreciate  that,  and  it  is  on  account  of 
these  difficulties  under  which  the  people  of  the  country  live, 
who,  I  believe,  should  be  encouraged. 

As  I  have  before  said,  we  have  a  summer  traffic  here  which 
is  one  of  the  best  things  that  New  Hampshire  has  in  the  way 
of  bringing  money  into  the  state,  and  that  should  be  encour- 
aged. Let  us,  therefore,  encourage  the  people  who  live  in 
these  country  towns. 

There  is  another  reason  why  the  country  towns  should 
have  a  larger  representation  in  proportion  to  population  than 
the  cities.  In  the  outlying  towns  the  number  of  voters  are 
greater  in  proportion  to  the  population  than  in  the  cities.  I 
think  statistics  will  show  that  the  cities  have  as  great  repre- 
sentation, or  better  if  anything,  than  the  smaller  towns  have 
to-day. 


294    JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — I  take  it  that  under  any  system 
adopted  there  will  be  in  the  cities  a  greater  surplus  of  popu- 
lation above  the  number  required  for  representation  than  in 
the  towns.  I  have  given  some  time  to  this  matter,  and  I 
find  that  under  the  present  system  this  surplus  of  popu- 
lation in  the  towns  amounts  to  76,689.  In  the  cities  this 
surplus  under  the  present  system  is  34,389,,  making  the  sur- 
plus in  the  towns  42,300  more  than  the  surplus  in  the  cities. 
On  the  basis  of  600  for  the  first  representative  and  2,000  for 
the  second,  there  would  be  a  surplus  of  population  in  the 
towns  of  82,889,  and  in  the  cities  of  47,659,  a  loss  to  the 
towns  of  35,230.  On  the  basis  of  800  for  the  first  represen- 
tative and  2,000  for  the  second,  the  surplus  in  the  towns 
would  be  54,140,  and  in  the  cities  41,786,  leaving  a  loss  to 
the  towns  over  and  above  that  of  the  cities  of  12,354. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  the 
towns  request  us  to  retain  the  present  system,  and  it  seems 
to  me  from  these  figures,  which  I  have  made  with  some  care, 
that  the  loss  is  against  the  towns  and  not  against  the  cities, 
as  has  been  suggested  here,  and  this  is  true  whether  we  retain 
the  present  system  and  make  the  number  600  for  the  first 
representative  and  2,000  for  the  second,  or  800  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  the  second.  It  seems  to  me  that  we  are  all 
members  of  one  community,  and  we  ought  to  work  in  har- 
mony for  the  good  of  the  state,  and  if  the  towns  are  willing 
to  sustain  the  loss,  then  I  believe  we  should  give  to  them  the 
system  which  they  seem  to  desire,  and  which  they  are  earn- 
estly advocating  here.  Under  the  existing  system  the  cities 
are  well  represented,  and  under  the  change  proposed  the  loss 
does  not  fall  upon  the  cities  to  the  extent  that  it  does  upon 
the  towns. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — I  may  at  a  later  date  wish  to 
say  a  few  things  in  regard  to  this  matter,  but  I  desire  to 
inquire  at  this  time  if,  under  Mr.  Lyford's  district  plan,  this 
surplus  which  has  already  been  spoken  of  at  different  times 
would  not  rapidly  and  almost  entirely  disappear?  Would 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  295 

not  these  towns  gain  a  larger  representation  than  they  now 
have?  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  there  would  be  scarcely  any 
surplus  unrepresented  population  at  all  under  Mr.  Lyford's 
plan. 

Mr.  Shute  of  Wentworth — I  move  that  the  committee  do 
now  arise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again.  Mo- 
tion prevailed. 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia,  chairman,  reported  that  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  had  had  under  consideration  the  mat- 
ters which  were  made  the  special  order  for  the  morning  re- 
lating to  the  apportionment  of  the  house  of  representatives, 
and  had  in  particular  been  discussing  the  resolution  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  also  par- 
ticular mention  had  been  made  of  the  resolution  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  and  there  had 
been  a  general  discussion  upon  the  matters  covered  by  the 
special  order.  These  matters  had  been  discussed  by  the  fol- 
lowing speakers:  The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Mitchell;  the  gentleman  from  Stratham,  Mr.  Wingate;  the 
gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Eastman;  the  gentleman  from 
Peterborough,  Mr.  Scott;  the  gentleman  from  Dorchester, 
Mr.  Ashley;  the  gentleman  from  Bedford,  Mr.  Woodbury; 
the  gentleman  from  Plainfield,  Mr.  Penniman;  the  gentle- 
man from  Portsmouth,  Mr.  Collins;  the  gentleman  from  Ply- 
mouth, Mr.  Wentworth;  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr. 
Hamblett,  and  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lamprey; 
and  having  reported  this  progress  the  committee  asked  leave 
to  sit  again. 

Leave  was  granted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


296     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

AFTERNOON. 

The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 
Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  hereafter,  when  the  sense  of  the  people  is 
taken  with  reference  to  the  necessity  of  calling  a  Constitu- 
tional Convention,  it  shall  not  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature 
to  call  such  a  Convention  unless  the  returns  show  that  at 
least  one  third  of  the  legal  voters  of  the  state  have  voted  in 
favor  of  it. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  other  Proposed 
Amendments. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester,  the  vote  was  recon  - 
sidered  by  which  the  resolution  offered  by  that  gentleman 
yesterday,  relating  to  trusts,  was  referred  to  the  Committee 
on  the  Legislative  Department;  and  on  motion  of  the  same 
gentleman,  the  resolution  was  referred  back  to  the  Conven- 
tion and  laid  upon  the  table  to  be  taken  up  in  connection 
with  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Chandler  on  the  same  subject. 

Mr.  Clement  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolved,  That  when  the  Convention  this  afternoon  con- 
siders the  proposed  amendment  relating  to  the  suffrage  for 
women,  all  persons  who  are  interested  shall  be  admitted 
within  the  chamber,  so  far  as  they  can  be  comfortably  accom- 
modated. 

Motion  prevailed. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Hillsborough,  from  the  Committee  on  the 
Judicial  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  297 

offered  by  Mr.  Sloane  of  Haverhill  providing  for  the  appoint- 
ment of  sheriffs  by  the  judges  of  the  superior  court,  reported 
the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  of  the  state  ought  not  to 
be  amended  as  proposed. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  resolution  adopted. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Whitefield  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  all  of  articles  nine  and  ten,  part  second  of 
the  Constitution  be  stricken  out  and  the  following  sub- 
stituted: 

ARTICLE  1.  Resolved,  That  the  membership  of  the  house 
of  representatives  shall  consist  of  one  member  from  each 
town  and  ward  in  the  state. 

ART.  2.  No  town  or  ward  shall  hereafter  be  so  subdi- 
vided as  to  increase  its  representatives. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole 
to  be  considered  with  other  resolutions  of  a  like  character. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  so  amended  that  until 
otherwise  provided  all  towns  and  cities  shall  be  entitled  to 
the  same  representation  in  the  house  of  representatives  as 
now  and  no  more. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole 
to  be  considered  with  other  resolutions  of  like  character. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Little  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
resolved  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  the 
various  resolutions  relating  to  representation. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Briggs  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 
The  Chairman — Gentlemen,  you  are  now  in  a  Committee 


298    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

of  the  Whole  to  consider  the  various  resolutions  that  have 
been  introduced  in  relation  to  the  apportionment  of  repre- 
sentatives. The  chair  will  await  the  action  of  the  commit- 
tee. 

Mr.  Little  of  Manchester — I  am  aware  that  our  time  is 
limited,  and  I  do  not  propose  to  occupy  but  a  few  moments. 
I  feel  that  I  should  be  derelict  in  my  duty  to  my  constituents 
if  I  should  fail  to  say  a  few  words  in  regard  to  the  subject  of 
representation  in  the  house  of  representatives,  which  was  so 
ably  and  fully  discussed  here  last  Thursday.  During  the 
forenoon  I  have  been  absent,  attending  to  my  duties  as  a 
member  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department,  and 
what  I  have  to  say  to  you  may  in  part,  at  least,  have  been 
said  by  others. 

Reference  has  repeatedly  been  made  here  to  the  country 
towns  of  our  state.  I  yield  to  no  man  upon  the  floor  of  this 
Convention  in  respect  and  honor  for  the  people  of  our  coun- 
try towns.  I  was  born  and  reared  in  one  of  the  old  hill 
towns  of  this  county,  a  town  which  has  had  a  most  honorable 
record,  and  I  recognize  the  rights  of  those  towns.  I  take 
equal  pride  in  the  eleven  cities  of  our  state,  and  recognize 
that  they  have  some  rights  in  this  Convention.  It  seems 
to  me,  gentlemen,  that  if  we  make  the  progress  which  we  de- 
sire, we  must  work  in  harmony.  I  very  much  regret  that 
several  members  of  the  Convention  have  spoken  in  slighting 
terms  of  the  foreign  population  of  our  cities,  referring,  I 
suppose,  to  our  naturalized  citizens.  I  represent  in  part  a 
ward  which  has  nearly  1,700  voters,  quite  a  large  proportion 
of  whom  are  natives  of  Canada  and  Sweden.  In  intelligence, 
in  devotion,  and  loyalty  to  the  government  of  our  state  and 
nation,  they  will  compare  favorably  with  the  citizens  of  the 
town  of  Nelson,  or  any  country  town  in  the  state.  Two  of 
my  colleagues  are  not  natives  of  this  country,  and  yet  there 
are  few  people  in  the  city  of  Manchester  who  are  more  highly 
esteemed.  In  my  opinion,  there  are  no  members  here  who 
have  more  interest  in  the  work  of  the  Convention  and  are 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  299 

more  devoted  to  the  best  interests  of  our  state  than  these  1  ,vo 
gentlemen. 

In  the  debate  last  Thursday,  the  gentleman  from  Temple 
made  the  statement  that  in  his  opinion  only  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  or  some  of  the 
amendments  in  that  line,  would  be  ratified  by  the  people  of 
the  state.  I  am  equally  certain  that  such  an  amendment  will 
not  be  ratified.  The  people  of  Manchester  and  other  cities 
are  awake  and  alive  to  their  interests.  The  gentleman  from 
Acworth  has  told  us  that  the  people  of  his  town  consider 
the  great  end  and  object  of  life  to  be  the  privilege  of  sitting 
in  the  legislature.  The  people  of  Manchester  do  not  go  quite 
so  far  as  that,  but  if  you  think  that  we  are  not  alive  to  our 
interests,  you  are  mistaken.  A  gentleman  said  to  me  this 
morning  that  almost  any  measure  that  may  be  approved  by 
the  country  towns  will  be  ratified  at  the  polls,  because  the 
people  of  the  cities  will  not  be  sufficiently  interested  to  come 
out  and  defeat  it.  I  think  this  gentleman  was  mistaken.  In 
my  opinion,  if  we  pass  an  amendment  here  that  makes  the 
inequality  of  representation  very  much  greater  than  it  now 
is,  you  will  find  the  people  of  the  cities  voting  almost  solidly 
against  it. 

The  gentleman  from  Newport  comes  here  with  the  propo- 
sition to  make  the  basis  of  representation  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative 600,  and  to  make  the  mean  increasing  number  for 
additional  representatives  2,000.  The  gentleman  from 
Peterborough  proposes  to  make  the  mean  increasing  number 
3,000,  leaving  the  number-  necessary  for  the  first  represen- 
tative 600.  Now,  gentlemen,  as  you  well  know,  there  is  a 
large  inequality  in  our  representation  to-day,  and  the  country 
towns  have  decidedly  the  advantage. 

Is  not  this  a  fair  proposition?  If  you  make  the  mean 
increasing  number  3,000,  make  the  basis  of  representation  for 
the  first  representative  1,000,  and  that  will  leave  the  ratio 
as  it  is  to-day.  But  a  better  plan,  in  my  opinion,  would  be 
this:  Make  the  basis  for  the  first  representative  800,  and 
the  mean  increasing  number  1,600,  and  that  will  also  leave 


300    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  ratio  as  it  is  to-day,  and  will  give  us,  as  I  understand  it, 
a  house  of  about  300  members. 

I  recognize  the  regard,  almost  veneration,  with  which 
many  members  of  this  Convention  look  upon  the  town  sys- 
tem, and  have  had  somewhat  of  that  feeling  myself;  but,  gen- 
tlemen, I  can  never  vote  to  adopt  any  amendment  that  will 
make  the  inequality  of  representation  greater  than  it  is  to- 
day. My  constituents,  and  I  have  talked  with  many  of  them, 
would  much  prefer  to  have  the  old  system  remain  than  to 
have  a  change  which  will  give  a  greater  inequality  of  repre- 
sentation, and  I  trust,  gentlemen  of  the  country  towns,  that 
you  will  be  willing  to  meet  us  half  way. 

Mr.  Osgood  of  Nelson — I  do  not  wish  to  dispute  any  man's 
word  on  the  floor  of  this  Convention,  or  anywhere;  but  I 
have  lived  in  a  country  town  ever  since  the  Civil  War,  where 
we  have  now  a  representative  once  in  four  years  under  the 
present  apportionment.  I  have  not,  however,  always  lived 
in  a  country  town.  For  about  six  years  previous  to  the 
breaking  out  of  the  Civil  War,  I  lived  in  the  city  of  Lawrence. 
I  do  not  know  how  good  the  naturalized  citizens  of  this  state 
are,  and  I  do  not  know  but  they  are  as  intelligent  and  as  well 
qualified  to  vote  as  the  citizens  of  the  country  towns;  but 
they  were  far  from  being  equal  to  the  population  of  our 
country  towns  at  the  time  I  speak  of,  and  at  that  place. 
Perhaps  in  this  state  they  were  better,  and  perhaps  they  have 
improved  much  since.  That  is  more  than  I  know,  but  at 
that  time,  I  venture  to  say,  if  I  am  competent  to  judge,  that 
they  were  far  from  being  as  good  citizens,  as  a  whole,  as  the 
native-born  men.  By  what  I  said  the  other  day  I  did  not 
mean  to  reflect — although  perhaps  I  did  to  some  extent — 
upon  the.  character  of  these  naturalized  citizens. 

For  one,  I  cannot  see  from  the  nature  of  the  case  why  such 
a  city  as  Manchester — why  thirty  representatives  would  not 
represent  that  city  equally  as  well  as  forty-nine,  which  they 
now  have.  It  seems  to  me  that  there  must  be  the  same  com- 
munity of  interests  in  a  city  that  thirty  men  can  represent 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  301 

quite  as  well  as  forty-nine.  But  in  relation  to  the  country 
towns  it  is  quite  different.  The  people  are  spread  over  a 
wide  territory,  and  they  are  more  separated,  and  not  as 
compact  as  those  in  the  cities,  and  they  cannot  have  the  same 
community  of  interest  from  the  nature  of  the  case  as  those 
who  reside  in  the  cities  do,  and  I  see  no  reason  in  my  judg- 
ment why  the  country  towns  should  not  be  better  repre- 
sented proportionately  than  the  larger  cities. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — I  wish  to  take  up  the  time  of 
this  Convention  for  about  five  minutes,  and  I  hope  I  can  get 
through  in  that  time.  There  are  some  things  that  ought 
to  be  said  in  this  connection.  The  state  of  New  Hampshire 
has  sent  us  here,  if  it  has  sent  us  here  for  any  one  thing,  to 
reduce  the  number  in  the  house  of  representatives.  There 
is  no  question  about  that.  I  have  talked  with  the  people  in 
the  country  and  people  in  the  city,  and  it  is  the  unanimous 
opinion,  so  far  as  I  have  been  able  to  learn,  that  the  house 
of  representatives  should  be  reduced,  and  reduced  essentially. 
Now  we  make  a  proposition  to  the  country  towns,  and  they 
tell  us  that  they  are  willing  to  reduce  the  house  of  represen- 
tatives, but  they  want  to  do  it  as  the  white  man  wished  to 
divide  with  the  Indian.  They  had  a  crow  and  a  turkey  to 
divide  between  them.  The  white  man  said,  "  You  take  the 
crow  and  I  will  take  the  turkey,  or  I  will  take  the  turkey  and 
you  may  take  the  crow."  The  gentleman  from  Newport, 
Mr.  Barton,  comes  here  and  says,  Yes,  we  will  cut  down  the 
representation,  but  we  will  keep  what  we  have  and  cut  you 
down,  or  we  will  cut  you  down  and  keep  what  we  have. 
That  is  about  the  size  of  it. 

The  representation,  as  was  said  by  a  speaker  who  has 
recently  spoken,  is  now  in  favor  of  the  towns,  and  I  am  will- 
ing that  it  should  remain  there,  but  never  will  I,  never  will 
my  constituents,  consent  to  take  one  step  toward  reducing 
the  house  of  representatives  in  such  a  way  as  to  make  the 
disproportion  larger  than  it  is  and  bring  this  state  to  the 
condition  of  Vermont  and  Connecticut.  A  democracy  does 


302    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

not  prevail  in  those  states,  but  a  kind  of  oligarchy.  Five  per 
cent,  of  the  people  of  Connecticut  can  rule  the  state,  and 
about  the  same  is  true  in  Vermont.  That  is  not  democracy; 
it  outrages  the  very  principles  upon  which  democracy  is 
founded,  which  is  that  one  man  is  as  good  as  another;  that 
a  man  in  the  city  is  as  good  as  a  man  in  the  country — not 
that  one  man  in  the  country  is  as  good  as  two  in  the  city, 
as  would  seem  to  be  the  principle  upon  which  the  present 
representation  is  based.  If  this  amendment  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  passes,  a  man  in  the  country 
will  count  for  as  much  as  four  in  the  city. 

How  long  ago  was  it  that  we  fought  a  great  war,  and  the 
principal  cause  of  that  war  was  that  the  South  claimed  a 
right  to  have  greater  weight  by  the  ballot  than  the  people  in 
the  North.  They  were  not  satisfied  with  voting  man  to 
man  with  us,  but  wanted  three  fifths  of  the  slaves  repre- 
sented, and  we  didn't  consent  to  that.  The  war  was  fought, 
and  the  North  won,  and  we  have  put  an  amendment  into 
the  Constitution  which  recognizes  the  principle  that  each 
state  shall  have  a  representation  in  congress  in  proportion  to 
the  voting  population  of  the  state. 

This  amendment  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  New- 
port, Mr.  Barton,  would  be  equivalent  to  enfranchising  every 
woman  and  child  in  the  small  country  towns.  I  am  in  favor 
of  the  enfranchisement  of  women;  but  if  you  are  to  enfran- 
chise the  women  in  the  country,  you  should  also  enfran- 
chise the  women  in  the  cities.  I  believe  in  fair  play. 

Our  fathers  took  a  step  in  the  wrong  direction  when  they 
established  the  principle  that  a  man  living  in  the  country 
should  count  for  more  than  one  living  in  the  cities.  A  great 
deal  has  been  said  about  reverence  and  veneration  for  our 
forefathers.  I  believe  that  we  should  reverence  them,  but 
I  do  not  believe  in  going  so  far  in  that  direction  as  to  over- 
look their  mistakes,  and  they  did  make  mistakes.  They  did 
not  make  a  Constitution  that  was  perfect,  and  they  didn't 
look  at  it  themselves  in  that  way.  The  Constitution  that 
was  first  made  had  not  been  in  force  a  great  many  years 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  303 

before  they  gathered  here  and  introduced  seventy-two  propo- 
sitions to  amend.  That  does  not  look  as  though  they  thought 
they  had  reached  the  climax  of  equity,  justice,  and  right  in 
this  matter. 

Another  principle  which  seems  to  be  upheld  by  the  advo- 
cates of  the  town  system,  and  one  which  I  think  is  wrong, 
is  that  the  representatives  of  the  people  should  live  on  the 
same  hillside  as  the  people  they  represent.  That  is  an 
exceedingly  narrow  way  of  looking  at  it.  Let  me  give  you 
an  example  in  national  politics,  which  is  only  a  wider  field 
than  that  of  the  state.  You  remember  a  few  years  ago  this 
district  was  looking  around  for  a  good  man  to  represent  them 
in  congress.  The  city  of  Concord,  or  any  other  city  in  this 
district,  might  have  come  up  and  said  that  they  would  not 
be  properly  represented  if  a  man  was  chosen  from  any  other 
place  than  such  city;  but  they  did  not  do  that.  They 
found  a  man  down  in  Bow,  in  the  person  of  Henry  M.  Baker, 
and  sent  him  to  congress,  and  everybody,  so  far  as  I  know, 
was  pleased  with  the  manner  in  which  he  represented  the 
district.  I  do  not  think  there  is  a  man  here  who  would  say 
that  anybody  suffered  on  account  of  Mr.  Baker  representing 
the  whole  district. 

I  think  it  is  conceded  that  thirty  members  would  repre- 
sent the  city  of  Manchester  as  well  as  forty-nine;  but  I  think 
it  is  equally  true  that  one  man  from  five  hill  towns  would 
represent  the  five  hill  towns  as  well  as  six,  or  eight,  or  ten 
men  could  do  it. 

There  is  one  thing  that  has  not  been  touched  upon.  The 
gentleman  from  Bedford,  Mr.  Woodbury,  spoke  this  morn- 
ing about  the  interest  the  cities  had  in  the  question  of  the 
prohibition  of  liquor,  or  the  sale  of  it.  That  question  is 
coming  before  the  legislature,  and  in  the  consideration  of 
such  questions  as  that  it  is  not  sentiment  that  governs,  but 
facts,  and  the  legislature  will  want  to  know, the  facts.  The 
cities  know  the  facts  that  concern  them.  Then  there  are 
large  financial  interests  centering  in  the  cities  that  must 
always  center  there,  and  the  people  of  those  cities  have  at 


304    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

least  the  same  right  to  vote  and  to  vote  on  equal  terms  on 
such  questions  with  the  men  from  the  country. 

Let  us  be  fair  to  all  parties.  The  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  is  a  fair  proposition. 
It  gives  every  man  in  the  state  the  opportunity  to  be  counted 
once,  and  once  only;  that  is  democracy;  and  anything  else 
tends  towards  oligarchy. 

Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Committee:  I  have  listened  with  close  attention  to  the 
various  propositions  that  have  been  presented  to  this  Con- 
vention on  this  question  of  how  we  should  reduce  the  repre- 
sentation of  the  lower  house  of  our  legislative  body.  I  came 
here  with  no  preconceived  notions  or.  convictions  as  to  what 
limit  should  be  placed  upon  the  size  of  that  body.  I  felt 
that  it  was  the  duty  of  this  Convention  to  answer  the  demand 
throughout  this  state  that  the  representation  should  be 
reduced. 

I  think  I  state  the  feeling  truly  when  I  say  that  there  is 
every  feeling  of  consideration  and  of  kindness  on  the  part 
of  the  delegates  from  the  cities  towards  every  town  in  this 
state.  To  approach  this  question  in  any  but  the  most  lib- 
eral and  tolerant  spirit  and  on  the  broadest  lines  of  equality 
can  meet  with  but  one  result  and  one  action  on  the  part  of 
this  Convention,  and  that  is  its  disapproval.  Any  attempt 
to  favor  one  locality  or  division  of  this  state  at  the  expense 
of  any  other  locality  ought  to  meet,  and  will  meet,  with  the 
disapproval  of  this  Convention. 

This  question  of  the  reduction  of  our  present  house  of 
representatives  is  too  momentous  for  politics  or  partisanship 
to  play  hide-and-seek  with,  and  it  needs  to  be  met  on  the 
broadest  lines  of  equality  and  right.  This  brings  us  face  to 
face  with  the  consideration  of  the  question,  What  is  an  equit- 
able method  of  reducing  our  house  of  representatives?  Every 
resolution  that  has  been  presented  to  this  Convention,  with 
a  few  exceptions,  have  been  measures  of  expediency  rather 
than  principle,  and  have  not  been  based  upon  equality,  but 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  305 

upon  expediency.  With  the  single  exception  of  the  measure 
introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  I 
think  that  is  absolutely  true,  that  all  the  propositions  made 
here  have  been  on  the  basis  of  expediency  rather  than  on  the 
basis  of  principle. 

Now  it  must  be  admitted  by  the  candid  man  of  this  Con- 
vention that  our  present  house  of  representatives  is  too  large, 
and  it  is  growing  constantly  larger,  and  that  a  smaller  body 
would  as  easily  do  the  work  without  any  loss  to  the  quality 
of  the  work.  I  say  that,  I  believe,  will  be  admitted  by  the 
great  majority  of  the  members  of  this  Convention.  Now 
what  measure  will  best  meet  the  need  and  the  wants  of  the 
whole  people  of  this  state,  and  the  demands  for  the  reduction 
of  the  house.  Let  us  meet  this  question  courageously.  Let 
us  give  to  the  people  of  this  state  a  measure  that  will  meet 
the  honest  demand  of  every  portion  of  this  state  on  this 
question;  that  will  equally  represent  every  man,  woman,  and 
child  within  this  state;  that  will  not  give  to  one  town,  because 
it  happens  to  have  601  or  a  few  more  inhabitants,  a  greater 
voice  in  the  legislation  of  this  state  than  another  portion  of 
the  state. 

I  think  the  district  system,  or  some  modification  of  it,  such 
as  has  been  presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Lyford,  is  the  only  fair,  honorable,  and  just  measure  which 
has  been  introduced  into  this  house. 

I  want  to  say  in  answer  to  the  gentleman  from  Nelson,  Mr. 
Osgood,  that  if  it  is  true  that  the  rural  community  of  this 
state  represents  a  higher  intelligence  than  the  city,  then  his 
argument  falls  to  the  ground,  because  if  that  is  true,  then 
those  benighted  heathen,  sitting  in  darkness  in  our  cities, 
should  have  a  double  representation  in  the  legislative  bodies 
of  our  state,  that  they  might  be  trained  in  self-government 
and  civic  virtue. 

Mr.  Busiel  of  Laconia — I  am  opposed  to  the  present  so- 
called  system  of  town  representation.  I  think  it  is  a  mis- 
nomer, because,  outside  of  the  state  of  Connecticut,  which 

20 


306    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

has  been  for  a  long  time  struggling  with  this  problem,  and 
outside  of  Vermont,  which  has  it  to  a  less  extent,  the  town 
system,  as  I  understand  it,  does  not  prevail  anywhere.  That 
is  to  say,  we  do  not  admit  that  representation  in  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  is  to-day,  or  ought  to  be,  a  simple  town  sys- 
tem, that  a  town  should  be  represented  because  it  is  a  town, 
and  a  ward  because  it  is  a  ward.  They  have  something 
similar  to  that  in  the  state  of  Connecticut,  which  they  have 
been  trying  to  do  away  with,  and  supersede  with  a  better 
system,  for  a  long  time.  They  have  gone  there  to  such  an 
extent  that  that  state  may  be  cited  as  one  of  the  states  in 
this  nation  which  more  nearly  represents  the  town  system 
than  any  other,  and,  I  am  sorry  to  say,  that  it  exists  as  the 
worst  example  of  state  representation  in  the  nation.  I  am 
not  in  favor  of  inaugurating  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire 
;any  such  system. 

We  already  have  the  district  system  in  New  Hampshire  in 
the  choice  of  senators,  and  I  have  yet  to  hear  any  complaint 
from  any  source  whatever  that  the  system  of  choosing  sena- 
tors is  not  fair  and  equitable.  There  does  not  seem  to  be 
any  objection  to  it,  to  my  mind,  save  one.  There  is  a  pro- 
vision in  the  Constitution  which  provides  that  the  districts 
should  be  divided  in  proportion  to  the  valuation  of  the  prop- 
erty, and  I  would  gladly  vote  to  strike  that  out.  That  is, 
you  divide  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  for  representation 
in  what  is  called  the  highest  body,  not  on  the  pinciple  of 
population,  but  on  the  principle  of  valuation,  and  I  would 
strike  out  forever,  if  I  could  have  my  way,  the  principle  of 
representation  based  upon  valuation  in  any  form. 

I  am  in  favor  of  dividing  this  state  into  districts.  It  is 
not  for  me  to  say  how  many  districts,  but  for  this  Convention 
to  say. 

I  may  be  entirely  wrong,  but  I  understand  that  the  house 
of  representatives  is  not  a  body  of  men  representing  the 
towns  and  cities  of  this  state,  but  the  people  of  the  state. 
This  Convention  is  a  body  representing,  not  the  towns  and 
cities  of  the  state,  but  the  people  of  the  state.  When  the 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  307 

people  of  the  state  made  their  Constitution,  they  reserved 
to  themselves  one  right — the  right  of  telling  how  they  should 
amend  that  Constitution,  and  they  provided  when  it  became 
necessary  to  change  the  Constitution,  that  it  should  be  done, 
not  by  a  vote  of  the  majority  of  the  towns  and  wards  of  the 
state.  There  is  nowhere  in  the  Constitution,  or  in  the  laws, 
anything  which  will  enable  any  man  justly  and  properly  to 
say,  as  I  understand  it,  that  these  men  who  are  to  frame 
amendments  represent  the  cities  or  towns  of  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire,  but  I  think  that  this  body  of  men  which 
I  see  before  me,  represents  the  people  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  we  are  the  delegates  of  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire.  They  cannot  come  here,  and  they  have  chosen 
us  as  their  delegates,  not  as  representatives  of  cities  and 
towns,  but  as  delegates  representing  the  whole  people,  and 
we  are  met  here  for  the  purpose  of  making  a  proposed  amend- 
ment that  will  reduce  the  house  of  representatives,  and  we 
should  do  it  with  a  view  to  the  interests  of  the  whole  state 
and  not  to  the  interests  of  any  one  town  or  city  in  the  state. 

I  was  sorry  to  see,  when  this  debate  began,  a  spirit  on  the 
part  of  the  men  who  come  here  from  the  small  towns  of  the 
state  to  bind  themselves  together.  There  was  an  attempt  to 
have  a  caucus,  but  the  notice  for  it  was  withdrawn.  I  do  not 
believe  in  any  such  thing  as  drawing  a  line  between  those 
who  favor  the  town  system  and  those  who  favor  the  district 
system,  and  I  hope  it  will  not  be  done. 

I  was  born  in  an  agricultural  town,  and  I  wish  to  say  here 
in  considering  this  question,  gentlemen,  that  you  will  make 
a  mistake  if  you  think  there  is  any  sanctity  whatever  in  the 
town  and  ward  lines  of  this  state.  I  was  born  in  the  town 
of  Gilford,  which  was  taken  from  the  town  of  Gilmanton,  and 
afterwards  still  another  town  was  taken  from  the  town  of 
Gilmanton.  Still  later,  a  portion  of  Gilford  was  annexed  to 
the  town  of  Laconia,  and  still  later  a  portion  of  Laconia  was 
annexed  to  the  town  of  Gilford,  and  when  the  city  of  La- 
conia was  incorporated  another  part  of  Gilford  was  taken 
and  included  within  the  city.  Laconia,  when  it  was  first 


308     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

incorporated,  was  divided  into  six  wards,  and  since  then  it 
has  been  divided  into  four  wards.  That  is  an  example,  gen- 
tlemen, from  which  you  will  see  that  very  often  in  this  state 
the  matter  of  town  and  ward  lines  has  not  been  considered 
of  importance;  that  whenever  the  legislature  for  some  good 
reason  believed  that  it  was  for  the  interest  of  the  people  of 
the  state  to  change  the  town  or  ward  lines,  they  went  ahead 
and  did  it. 

I  have  no  sympathy  whatever  with  this  idea  that  you  are 
eradicating  town  lines  if  you  divide  the  state  into  districts. 
You  are  doing  nothing  of  the  sort.  A  man  or  men  would 
come  from  the  rural  towns  and  represent  those  towns  just 
the  same  if  you  should  divide  this  state  into  districts  of  4,000 
people  each,  and  you  are  not  by  so  doing  disproportionately 
cutting  off  the  influence  or  weight  of  any  town  in  legis- 
lation. Nor  are  you  depriving  a  town  from  sending  one  of 
its  own  citizens  to  the  legislature,  if  there  is  a  citizen  in  such 
town  who  is  expressly  adapted  for  such  duties.  Other  towns 
will  recognize  the  worth  of  such  a  man,  and  they  will  give 
the  people  everywhere  who  are  worthy  of  coming  to  Concord 
the  privilege  of  doing  so,  even  though  the  town  should  be  a 
part  of  a  district.  They  will  give  those  people  due  consid- 
eration, and  will  give  them  an  election  to  the  house  just  as 
they  do  to-day,  although  perhaps  not  so  many  of  them — I 
hope  not. 

The  question  was  asked  to  have  some  one  prove  affirma- 
tively that  the  house  is  too  large.  There  are  some  things 
that  do  not  need  to  be  proved  affirmatively.  If  a  man  is 
studying  mathematics  he  knows  that  there  are  some  things 
that  are  axiomatic,  and  do  not  need  to  be  proved.  For  in- 
stance, a  straight  line  is  the  shortest  distance  between  two 
points.  It  is  axiomatic  that  this  house  is  too  large,  and  it 
is  too  large  why?  Because  it  is  perfectly  evident  that  this 
hall  is  not  large  enough  to  accommodate  comfortably  so 
many,  and  the  proposition  has  often  been  considered,  and 
considered  seriously,  to  enlarge  this  state  house  so  as  to  get 
a  bigger  hall  of  representatives.  Another  reason  that  the 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  309 

house  is  too  large  is  because  it  is  cumbersome.  It  is  not  an 
easily  governed  body  of  men.  I  never  have  had  much  occa- 
sion to  find  fault  with  the  laws  that  they  have  made,  or  with 
the  representatives  themselves.  Those  that  sit  in  the  front 
seats  of  this  house,  as  a  rule,  are  men  capable  of  directing 
legislation,  but  they  could  more  easily  direct  a  smaller  body. 
I  object  to  this  principle  of  representation  now  in  force 
and  as  advanced  by  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Bar- 
ton, because  it  is  utterly  unjust  and  unequal.  It  is  not  a 
great  many  years  ago  that  the  people  of  this  country  as- 
sembled in  Philadelphia  and  promulgated  to  the  world  the 
doctrine  of  freedom  and  equality,  the  first  thing  of  the  kind 
that  ever  saw  light,  and  that  was  promulgated  in  the  Decla- 
ration of  Independence.  There  they  enunciated  the  doc- 
trine which  has  shaken  this  earth  from  center  to  circumfer- 
ence. They  said  that  all  men  are  created  free  and  equal. 
Then  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  which  was  one  of  the 
thirteen  to  ratify  the  Constitution,  had  to  construct  a  Con- 
stitution of  its  own,  and  in  that  Constitution  the  first  pro- 
vision says,  "  All  men " — not  a  man  in  Manchester,  or  a 
man  from  the  hillside,  not  a  man  in  Coos,  or  in  Sullivan, 
but — "  all  men  are  born  equally  free  and  independent."  And 
the  second  article  starts  with  these  words:  "All  men  have 
certain  natural,  essential,  and  inherent  rights."  There  is 
'no  reservation  about  some  men,  but  it  means  all  men. 
Straight  through  the  Bill  of  Rights,  and  straight  through 
that  Constitution,  you  will  see  the  same  principle.  You  will 
not  see  any  shadow  of  variation  or  turning  from  it  until,  Mr. 
Chairman,  you  strike  the  article  providing  for  a  method  of 
representation.  That  is  the  first  departure  from  this  prin- 
ciple. When  you  come  to  article  eleven  it  says:  "All  elec- 
tions ought  to  be  free,  and  every  inhabitant  of  the  state  hav- 
ing proper  qualifications  has  an  equal  right  to  elect,  and  be 
elected,  into  office."  There  is  nothing  said  here  about  a 
man  in  the  country  town  being  equal  to  two  men  in  the  city. 
There  is  nothing  said  here  about  the  proposition  to  make  a 
man  in  the  country  town  equal  to  four  men  in  the  city.  But 


310    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  men  who  established  the  Constitution  in  every  single 
part  of  it,  except  in  the  part  relating  to  legislative  bodies, 
very  carefully  enunciated  the  principle  of  equality.  It  was 
equality  and  not  discrimination.  They  did  not  raise  the 
question  whether  a  man  born  on  the  hillside  is  better  than 
a  man  born  at  the  seaside  or  in  the  city.  They  did  not  recog- 
nize at  all  the  question  of  immigration  or  how  many  genera- 
tions back  you  would  have  to  go  before  you  found  the  essen- 
tial qualifications  that  would  enable  a  man  to  vote.  They 
did  not  inquire  how  many  years  back  a  man  would  have  had 
to  come  to  this  country  to  enable  him  to  have  the  full  privi- 
leges of  citizenship,  but  they  enunciated  the  principles  that 
were  enunciated  years  ago  on  the  barren  coast  of  New  Eng- 
land, at  Plymouth  Eock,  by  those  who  sought  a  country 
where  they  would  be  freer  than  in  the  country  which  they 
left. 

It  is,  and  ought  to  be,  our  boast  that  this  is  a  country  that 
welcomes  these  people,  who  come  here  to  better  their  condi- 
tion, and  there  ought  not  to  be  any  talk  here  about  the 
superiority  of  some  people  who  came  here  before  others.  If 
there  was  anything  that  the  people  of  this  country  fought 
for  and  strove  to  uphold,  it  was  the  principle  of  equality 
among  men.  When  our  forefathers  declared  the  independ- 
ence of  this  country,  that  was  the  first  time  that  the  prin- 
ciple of  equality  had  a  chance  to  assert  itself;  it  was  the  first' 
time  that  the  people  had  courage  to  rise  up  against  a  despotic 
and  aristocratic  government,  and  every  one  who  did  it  put 
his  head  into  a  hangman's  noose,  and  especially  those  who 
signed  that  immortal  instrument,  the  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence. 

This  country  was  founded  by  men  who  came  across  the 
water  and  landed  here,  and  settled  this  country  for  the  pur- 
pose of  gaining  liberty  and  independence  in  political  rights 
and  in  religion  and  the  right  of  worship,  and  those  that  have 
come  here  since  have  come  for  similar  purposes. 

I  have  no  sympathy  with  the  argument  here  that  one  class 
is  better  than  another,  not  at  all.  I  am  engaged  in  manu- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  311 

facturing.  When  I  entered  that  business  there  was  hardly  a 
person  in  the  factory  but  what  was  native  born.  We  had  a 
few  Irishmen,  but  of  Frenchmen  there  were  none.  Those 
people  that  have  come  here  since  have  come,  why?  Because 
we  sent  out  invitations  for  them  to  come  here?  Nothing  of 
the  sort.  Because  we  wanted  them  to  come  here  to  displace 
our  own  people?  Nothing  of  the  sort.  There  is  no  manu- 
facturer who  will  rise  in  this  house  and  tell  you  that  they 
employed  those  people  and  sent  invitations  for  them  to  come 
here  because  they  were  better  people  than  ours,  or  anything 
of  that  kind.  Those  people  came  here  for  the  same  reason 
that  sent  the  people  to  this  country  in  the  first  place,  and 
for  the  same  reason  that  has  been  sending  people  here  ever 
since  the  country  was  founded — to  better  themselves.  Our 
people  could  not  furnish  the  help  to  run  the  looms  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  if  manufacturing  had  to  de- 
pend upon  the  native  population  to  run  those  looms  they 
would  practically  all  stop.  These  people  have  come  here, 
as  I  have  said,  to  better  their  condition,  and  we  must  not 
discriminate  against  them.  There  is  no  sound  reason  why 
we  should  assume  here  that  600  people  out  on  the  hillside 
are  better  than  1,799  people  somewhere  else,  but  that  is  what 
you  are  doing.  That  is  what  the  Convention  which  came 
here  and  said  that  600  people  should  elect  one  representa- 
tive but  it  should  take  1,800  to  elect  two,  did.  Now  shall 
we  fix  it  so  that  600  people  will  be  as  good  as  2,599  people? 
That  is  what  you  would  do  if  you  accept  the  amendment 
proposed  by  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton. 

This  form  of  representation  is  vicious,  and  it  was  vicious 
from  the  first.  It  never  was  right  because  never  just.  It 
was  never  right  because  never  equal.  You  cannot  make 
injustice  and  inequality  right,  I  don't  care  what  you  do. 

Now  if  you  will  take  this  matter  and  meet  it  courageously 
and  adopt  a  measure  and  place  it  before  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire  which  will  give  them  a  house  of  reasonable  size, 
elected  upon  the  district  system,  and  then  go  among  them 
and  sa}r,  gentlemen,  you  must  place  yourselves  in  line  with 


312     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  other  people  of  this  country,  and  put  your  house  on  the 
basis  of  a  district  system,  because  that  enables  the  representa- 
tion in  the  legislature  of  every  man,  woman,  and  child  all 
of  the  time,  and  makes  them  equal,  I  have  no  fears  that  the 
people  will  not  ratify  such  a  measure.  If  they  do  not,  I 
shall  be  very  sorry,  but  I  think  they  will  ratify  it.  I  hope 
so.  I  do  not  think  it  becomes  us  to  come  here  and  say  that 
the  people  of  the  state  are  not  intelligent  and  do  not  under- 
stand this  question.  I  think  they  do. 

I  am  not  contending  here  for  any  particular  number  of 
which  the  house  should  be  composed.  In  regard  to  that  it 
is  not  for  me  to  say.  I  believe  100  members  will  do  the 
business  of  this  state  just  exactly  as  well  as  400.  I  have  no 
doubt  about  it  at  all.  We  have  in  this  nation  forty-five  great 
states,  and  out  of  those  forty-five  states  there  are  only  six 
that  have  over  153  representatives  in  the  popular  branch  of 
the  legislature,  and  two  of  those  that  have  more  than  153 
are  in  New  England.  New  England  is  the  place,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, from  which  the  men  started  who  have  founded  the 
great  Western  states.  The  men  who  went  from  our  New 
England  were  perfectly  familiar  with  our  ideas,  and  many  of 
them  have  been  in  this  very  chamber  and  made  laws  for  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire.  There  can  be  no  question  but  what 
they  are  intelligent  and  far-sighted.  They  have  built  up 
the  greatest  empire  that  has  ever  been  built  upon  this  earth, 
and  some  of  those  Western  states  have  two,  three,  and  four 
millions  of  people  in  them.  But  they  do  not  have  a  house 
of  five,  six,  seven,  or  eight  hundred  people  to  represent  those 
millions.  They  say  that  100  people  is  sufficient,  or  a  ma- 
jority of  the  states  do.  The  majority  do  not  have  more 
than  100  representatives  in  the  popular  branch  of  their  legis- 
lature. Does  any  man  say  that  the  Western  people  are  not 
thoroughly  represented  in  their  house  of  representa- 
tives by  these  100  men.  If  so,  I  would  like  to 
have  them  show  me  the  particulars  and  show  where 
they  fail.  I  do  not  think  a  man  here  can  say  that  they  are 
not  well  represented.  I  think  their  laws  are  as  good  as  ours, 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  313 

and  their  property  and  individual  rights  are  as  well  safe- 
guarded. The  great  state  of  New  York,  with  its  six  million 
people,  has  a  house  of  but  150  representatives,  which  would 
be  but  one  representative  to  every  40,000  of  people.  It  is 
no  answer  for  any  man  to  say  on  this  floor  that  there  has  been 
in  the  state  of  New  York  laws  which  were  not  good,  and  that 
there  have  been  things  done  in  that  state  of  which  we  do  not 
approve,  or  that  there  have  been  things  done  in  the  city  of 
Philadelphia  and  the  state  of  Pennsylvania  of  which  we  do 
not  approve;  it  is  no  answer  to  say  because  they  have  had 
trouble  it  has  been  due  to  faulty  basis  of  representation. 
Those  evils  have  been  inherent  in  their  system  of  government, 
as  they  are  inherent  in  all  systems  of  government. 

I  djo  not  come  here  with  any  remedy  for  all  the  evils  which 
exist  in  New  Hampshire,  or  to  offer  any  panacea  whatever. 
I  come  here  believing  thoroughly  and  honestly  that  this 
state  has  always  made  a  mistake  about  its  representative 
body.  I  come  here  believing  that  the  system  will  never  be 
satisfactory,  both  because  it  is  unequal  and  because  it  is  not 
and  cannot  be  permanent. 

Something  has  been  said  here  with  reference  to  increasing 
the  size  of  our  senate.  If  it  is  necessary  to  increase  the  size 
of  the  senate,  I  would  be  very  glad  to  do  it;  but  I  say,  by 
all  means,  lessen  the  size  of  the  house.  I  believe  that  to  be 
the  popular  demand  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  I  be- 
lieve that  to  be  the  demand  of  the  people  who  caused  this 
Convention  to  assemble.  If  I  had  my  way,  I  would  cut  this 
body  down  so  that  it  would  not  consist  ever  again  of  such 
number  of  men  as  it  has  now,  or  has  had  in  the  past.  If  300 
is  right,  I  will  not  object  to  that.  I  do  not  think,  however, 
it  is  right.  I  would  rather  have  it  100,  but  if  I  cannot  get 
what  I  want,  I  will  take  what  you  gentlemen  think  is  best, 
but  to  whatever  size  we  reduce  it,  let  us  reduce  it  on  such  a 
•system  that  the  reduction  will  be  permanent.  I  think  that 
this  Convention  should  materially  reduce  the  representation 
in  New  Hampshire.  I  think  that  was  the  purpose'  for  which 
it  was  created.  I  think  we  shall  fail  in  our  duty  if  we  d6 


314     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

not  submit  to  the  people  some  method  for  so  reducing  it. 
When  you  get  away  from  here,  if  you  adopt  a  measure  that 
will  change  the  basis  of  representation  but  a  little,  you  will 
be  asked,  Why  didn't  you  cut  it  open?  Why  didn't  you  cut 
it  in  two?  That  is  the  question  that  will  be  asked.  Every 
time  I  go  home,  I  am  met  by  some  of  my  constituents  and 
they  speak  something  like  this:  "  For  God's  sake,  have  n't 
you  got  an  opportunity  now,  and  won't  you  do  it  now? 
Won't  you  cut  it  in  two?  Don't  let  it  be  so  big,  there  is  no 
need  of  it." 

Some  gentlemen  have  spoken  about  its  educational  value. 
It  has  an  educational  value,  and  so  would  a  representative 
body  of  100  men.  But  if  I  understand  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire  aright,  I  do  not  think  it  is  necessary  for\us  to 
educate  intelligent  men  who  live  anywhere  within  the  limits 
of  our  state  in  such  duties  as  they  have  to  perform  when  they 
meet  in  a  representative  body  to  enact  the  laws  for  the  state. 
Perhaps  they  may  not  have  a  thorough  preparation  in  par- 
liamentary law,  Cushing's  Manual  may  not  be  familiar  to 
them,  but  it  is  entirely  possible  for  every  one  to  post  himself 
sufficiently  in  matters  pertaining  to  parliamentary  law  to  en- 
able him  to  enact  the  laws  for  our  state  without  calling  upon 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire  to  pay  for  such  education. 

Now  let  us  look  at  this  from  the  standpoint  of  expense. 
Do  you  stop  to  think  what  we  are  paying  400  men  to  come 
here  and  legislate  for  us  every  two  years?  There  was  a  time 
not  so  very  long  ago  when  a  member  of  the  house  was  paid 
three  dollars  a  day,  and  at  one  session  they  were  kept  101 
days,  and  each  member  received  $303.  At  that  time  the 
pay-roll  of  that  house  was  somewhere  like  $125,000 — some- 
where in  that  neighborhood.  That  appeared  a  little  too 
steep,  and  the  people  of  the  state  didn't  like  it,  and  they  did 
succeed  in  amending  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state  so 
that  the  compensation  of  each  member  at  any  legislature  was 
$200,  and  that  is  what  it  now  is,  so  that,  taking  the  pay-roll 
of  the  house  as  it  is  now,  consisting  of  397  members,  and  you 
have  almost  $80,000  for  the  pay-roll  of  the  members,  to  say 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  315 

nothing  of  the  officers  and  the  other  expenses  of  the  legis- 
lature. If  you  had  a  house  of  300  members,  your  pay-roll 
would  be  $60,000,  and  that  would  mean  a  great  saving  over 
a  membership  of  400.  But  if  you  should  cut  it  in  two,  and 
have  a  house  of  say  150  members,  you  would  save  $30,000 
additional  in  money  from  the  pay-roll  alone,  not  to  speak  of 
the  other  expenses,  which  would  amount  to  as  much  more. 
And  what  is  that  for,  what  is  the  expense  that  we  are  now 
incurring  for?  To  enable  400  men  to  come  here  for  a  short 
session  and  make  laws.  Is  it  not  better  to  save  that  money 
and  prut  it  into  your  popular  educational  fund  for  the  benefit 
of  the  whole  state?  I  think  it  is.  I  believe  it  is.  Whether 
that  affects  any  particular  man's  pocket  much  or  little  is  not 
to  be  considered  here,  but  how  it  will  affect  the  whole  state. 
I  can  remember  when  the  whole  expense  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  every  expense  of  the  carrying  on  of  the  state 
government  from  one  year's  end  to  another,  was  only  $60,000, 
and  by  cutting  the  legislature  down  to  150  members  you 
can  save  as  much  money  in  one  year  nearly  as  it  used  to  cost 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire  to  run  all  of  its  departments. 

I  sincerely  believe,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  time  is  cer- 
tainly coming  in  New  Hampshire  when  we  must  make  this 
change  to  the  district  system,  and  why  not  make  it  now. 
Why  not  make  a  new  departure  at  this  time.  I  think  if  we 
adopt  the  proper  system  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  will 
endorse  it. 

There  are  certain  things  about  the  proposed  amendment 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  of 
which  I  do  not  approve,  and  one  of  the  most  objectionable  is 
the  method  of  redistricting  the  state.  I  do  not  think  the 
county  commissioners,  able  men  as  they  undoubtedly  are, 
the  proper  men  to  make  the  distribution.  I  think  it  ought 
to  be  done  by  a  different  tribunal.  But  that  is  for  some  one 
else  to  determine  and  not  for  me.  I  thank  you  for  your  at- 
tention. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — After  having  been  rebuked  by 
the  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Eastman,  for  presuming  to 


316     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

sit  upon  a  front  seat  that  was  offered  to  me  by  one  of  my 
friends  in  the  Convention,  and  that,  too,  without  comper^sa- 
tion,  it  is  with  some  embarrassment,  but  perhaps  with  en- 
lightenment, that  I  address  myself  to  this  question  again. 

I  am  obliged  to  the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken  here  in 
behalf  of  the  town  system  for  the  arguments  that  they  have 
made  in  behalf  of  the  district  system.  There  is  no  stronger 
argument  for  the  district  system  than  the  argument  presented 
by  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr.  Hamblett,  this  morning, 
when  he  pointed  out  to  you  the  inequalities  that  have  to  be 
adjusted  if  you  preserve  the  town  system.  It  is  unequal  as 
it  exists  to-day,  and  it  will  be  unequal  however  you  may  tcj 
to  obviate  it. 

The  gentleman  from  Laconia  has  said  that  there  are  fea- 
tures in  the  bill  I  have  presented  to  which  he  objects.  I  am 
glad  the  district  system  has  reached  that  point  of  discussicr. 
I  presented  this  bill  as  a  tentative  bill.  I  presented  as  near 
as  I  could  what  had  been  in  existence  in  the  state  of  Massa- 
chusetts and  been  generally  acceptable  there  for  a  period  of 
nearly  fifty  years.  I  did  not  know,  nor  do  I  now  know,  that 
it  would  be  exactly  adapted  to  our  circumstances  and  our 
environments.  The  gentleman  who  is  absent  from  his  °,jat 
to-day — the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  Judge  Blodgett — 
suggested  to  me  an  amendment  which  would  take  the  making 
of  the  district  lines  out  of  the  hands  of  the  county  commis- 
sioners and  substitute  for  the  county  commissioners  a  board 
to  be  appointed  in  each  county  by  the  superior  court  of  the 
state.  That  proposition,  he  said,  would  meet  with  his  ap- 
proval, and  the  approval  of  many  others  in  this  Convention 
who  object  to  the  proposition  as  it  stands.  That  amendment 
would  meet  with  no  opposition  from  me.  I  am  willing  the 
district  system  shall  be  perfected  to  accord  with  the  ideas  of 
the  people  of  this  state,  and  be  so  adapted  that  it  will  fit  into 
our  conditions  and  our  environments. 

The  gentleman  from  Acworth,  Mr.  Mitchell,  has  said  that 
the  only  thing  that  cheers  the  men  of  the  back  towns  as  they 
toil  in  the  hot  sun,  working  with  the  hoe  and  with  the  scythe, 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  317 

is  the  thought  that  comes  to  them  that  sometime  it  may  be 
their  turn  to  come  to  the  legislature.  I  imagine  that  the 
gentleman  from  Acworth  has  hit  the  nail  more  squarely  on 
the  head  than  any  man  who  has  described  the  town  system. 
The  gentleman  from  Peterborough.,  Mr.  Scott,  who  has  filled 
every  office  within  the  gift  of  his  town,  who  has  been  repre- 
sentative and  state  senator,  who  has  been  high  sheriff  of  his 
county,  who  has  been  a  member  of  several  Constitutional 
Conventions,  and  in  all  those  places  has  brought  honor  to 
himself  and  to  his  constituents,  says  that  he  is  ready  to  sur- 
render an  additional  representative  from  his  town  that  the 
country  towns  may  get  a  larger  proportion  of  representation. 
If,  as  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Acworth,  the  one  thing 
consoling  the  men  of  the  country  towns  and  the  only  cheer 
that  they  have  is  the  prospect  that  it  will  come  their  turn 
sometime  to  go  to  the  legislature,  does  the  gentleman  from 
Peterborough  think  this  same  condition  does  not  exist  in 
large  towns  like  Peterborough,  and  in  cities  like  Manchester? 

There  was  a  man  in  a  country  town  who  had  held  the 
office  of  third  selectman,  second  selectman,  and  first  select- 
man, and  other  offices  in  the  town,  and  had  been  represen- 
tative, and  when  his  party  met  in  caucus  the  next  campaign 
this  man  was  absent.  His  son  was  present,  and  one  of  the 
leaders  said  to  him,  "  Sonny,  where  is  your  father?"  "  Oh, 
father?  Father  has  held  all  the  offices,  and  he  has  got  done." 
Now  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough,  who  has  held  all  the 
offices,  perhaps  has  got  done,  but  there  are  younger  men 
coming  up  behind  him  to  whom  this  ambition  of  represent- 
ing the  town  of  Peterborough  in  the  legislature  is  just  as 
dear  and  just  as  important  as  it  was  to  him. 

The  gentleman  from  Peterborough,  Mr.  Scott,  and  the 
gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  have  presented  a 
proposition  here  which  provides  for  increasing  the  inequali- 
ties of  representation  between  the  towns  of  more  than  one 
representative  and  the  small  towns.  What  is  the  result  of 
that  proposition  carried  to  its  logical  sequence?  The  small 
towns  come  here  and  say,  You  may  make  a  reduction  of  this 


318     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

house,  but  you  must  take  the  reduction  out  of  the  cities  and 
the  large  towns.  When  you  concede  the  point  of  reduction 
ancf  reject  the  district  system,  you  have  done  nothing  except 
to  provide  a  temporary  expedient.  At  the  end  of  ten,  twenty, 
or  twenty-five  years,  you  will  come  here  again  to  consider 
a  method  of  reducing  the  house.  How  will  you  stand 
then.  You  have  given  a  disproportionate  power  to  the  small 
towns  and  have  taken  from  the  large  towns  and  cities  the 
strength  they  now  have  in  their  relation  to  the  small  towns. 
You  have  in  this  way  made  progression  toward  the  Connec- 
ticut and  the  Vermont  plans.  When  another  reduction  is 
demanded  the  small  towns  will  again  say,  Let  it  be  taken  from 
the  large  towns  and  cities  of  the  state,  and  it  will  only  be  a 
few  decades  before  you  reach  the  situation  of  one  represen- 
tative for  each  town  and  each  ward  of  a  city,  which  is  the 
condition  existing  to-day  in  the  states  of  Vermont  and  Con- 
necticut, a  condition  that  the  majority  of  the  people  of  those 
states  desire  to  abolish. 

I  did  not  suppose  that  the  object  of  representation  was 
that  men  could  take  turns  in  going  to  the  legislature,  but  that 
it  was  the  selection  of  men  who,  because  of  their  qualifi- 
cations and  standing  in  town,  would  make  better  represen- 
tatives for  that  locality  than  other  men.  That  what  was 
sought  were  proper  men  to  speak  for  the  locality,  men  who 
could  vote  intelligently  because  of  their  knowledge  of  affairs. 
I  supposed  that  that  was  the  theory  of  selection  of  represen- 
tatives instead  of  the  system  suggested  here,  that  each  man 
should  have  his  turn  in  going  to  the  legislature. 

Delegates  have  appealed  to  sentiment  in  connection  with 
the  reduction  of  the  house.  Let  me  reply  that  it  was  not 
sentiment  that  elected  my  friend  from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Kent, 
when  he  was  sent  here  by  both  parties.  It  was  not  senti- 
ment that  sent  here  my  friend  from  Portsmouth,  Mr.  Norris, 
it  was  not  sentiment  that  sent  here  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin,  Judge  Blodgett,  nor  sentiment  that  elected  the 
gentleman  from  Ward  four,  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell.  It  was 
not  sentiment  that  sent  these  men  here.  They  were  elected 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  319 

for  practical  reasons  with  the  hope  that  they  would  rise  above 
sentiment  and  local  feelings  in  working  out  amendments  to 
the  Constitution  and  presenting  them  to  the  people.  We 
none  of  us  were  sent  here  to  serve  our  towns  alone,  but  to 
serve  the  whole  state. 

If  you  will  look  into  the  proceedings  of  the  Massachusetts 
Convention  of  1853,  you  will  find  Henry  "Wilson  was  elected 
from  two  towns,  and  several  other  members  were  elected  from 
two  towns  because  they  were  men  who  could  do  the  work  of 
that  Convention  well,  or  help  do  it.  We  stand  here  as  repre- 
sentatives of  the  whole  state,  and  whatever  we  do  here  is  for 
the  benefit  of  the  whole  state,  is  for  the  benefit  of  every  tovni 
in  the  state,  directly  or  indirectly. 

Something  has  been  said  here  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  and  by  others  of  the  veneration  we 
should  have  for  the  present  Constitution,  because  it  was  built 
by  the  fathers.  I  maintain  that  we  show  no  disrespect  to 
the  fathers  if  we  can  improve  the  document,  considering  our 
conditions  and  environments,  which  are  different  from  what 
they  were  at  the  time  the  Constitution  was  made.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  said  that  the  fathers 
were  confronted  by  the  same  conditions  that  confront  us  to- 
day. I  beg  leave  to  differ  with  him.  The  inequality  of  rep- 
resentation then  was  not  such  as  now.  There  was  no  city  in 
the  state.  Manchester  was  not  in  existence,  Concord  was  a 
country  village,  smaller  in  size  than  Hopkinton,  and  Ports- 
mouth was  the  principal  town  of  the  state. 

Gentlemen  admit  here,  one  after  another,  that  the  district 
system  is  a  system  of  equality  and  justice,  and  if  we  had  to 
construct  a  Constitution,  if  we  had  to  build  anew,  we  should 
build  on  the  district  system.  The  fathers  themselves,  if  they 
were  here  and  had  to  deal  with  our  conditions,  would  deal 
with  them  as  Mr.  Plumrner,  who  was  quoted  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  wished  to  deal  with  them 
then,  because  he  saw  farther  into  the  future  than  any  other 
of  the  delegates.  He  saw  what  has  since  happened  that  we 
would  grow  to  be  a  great  state  as  well  as  a  great  nation,  and 
that  the  town  system  would  be  unequal  and  unjust. 


320     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Talk  about  the  sacredness  of  the  past  and  of  what  the 
fathers  built!  In  the  state  of  Connecticut  the  people  existed 
as  a  state  for  forty  years  under  their  old  colonial  charter, 
contending  all  the  time  for  its  revision,  and  it  almost  required 
a  revolution  to  bring  about  a  change.  Under  that  charter 
there  was  not  a  house  and  senate,  but  the  second  branch  was 
called  the  council,  and  it  consisted  of  twelve  members. 
Every  act  that  was  passed  had  to  receive  the  sanction  of 
seven  of  that  council.  Every  law  that  was  repealed  had  to 
receive  their  votes.  Every  appointment  that  was  made  from 
the  judges  of  the  court  down  to  the  justices  of  the  peace,  had 
to  receive  the  sanction  of  those  seven  men.  They  not  only 
made  all  appointments,  and  made  all  the  laws,  but  they  sat 
as  a  court  to  review  the  laws  they  had  made,  and  most  of 
them  practised  as  lawyers  before  that  court.  That  condition 
of  affairs  lasted  because  there  were  men  in  Connecticut  who 
had  regard  for  the  sacredness  of  the  past  and  opposed  changes 
of  unjust  conditions  for  that  reason.  Do  the  gentle- 
men who  are  talking  about  the  sacredness  of  things  know 
that  we  have  made  progress  every  day  since  the  state  consti- 
tutions were  formed?  There  was  a  property  qualification  for 
voting,  and  a  higher  property  qualification  for  holding  office 
in  all  of  them,  but  all  of  these  things  have  been  wiped  out, 
and  it  is  no  reflection  upon  the  fathers  that  they  have  been 
wiped  out. 

We  are  brought  face  to  face  here  with  an  important  ques- 
tion. The  first  time  I  took  the  floor,  I  said  to  you,  and  I 
repeat,  that  the  facts  as  demonstrated  by  the  tables  presented 
show  how  impossible  it  is  to  obtain  any  considerable  reduc- 
tion of  this  house  under  the  town  system  that  will  not  in- 
crease the  inequalities  already  existing  and  prorate  half  of  the 
towns  of  the  state.  Are  we  then  to  submit  what  we  ourselves 
disapprove?  In  the  Convention  which  framed  the  federal 
Constitution,  when  it  seemed  as  though  the  attempt  to  frame 
a  Constitution  would  fail  because  some  of  the  members  set 
the  interests  of  the  states  higher  than  those  of  the  nation, 
its  president,  George  Washington,  made  one  of  the  few 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  321 

speeches  he  ever  made,  a  speech  of  five  or  six  lines,  which 
ought  to  be  emblazoned  in  letters  of  gold  in  every  school- 
house,  and  in  every  house  of  assembly  in  this  country. 
Standing  there  before  that  body,  when  it  seemed  as  though 
local  jealousies  would  bring  their  work  to  naught,  he  said: 
"  It  is  all  too  probable  that  no  plan  we  propose  will  be  adopted. 
If  to  please  the  people  we  offer  what  we  ourselves  disapprove, 
how  can  we  afterwards  defend  our  work?  Let  us  raise  a 
standard  to  which  the  wise  and  the  honest  can  repair.  The 
event  is  in  the  hands  of  God." 

Is  not  this  the  spirit  to  actuate  us? 

Appeals  have  been  made  to  the  memory  of  the  past.  Let 
me  speak  of  the  past  and  of  those  men  who  set  aside  their 
individual  opinions  and  helped  frame  our  Constitution,  and 
who  gave  that  assent  by  which  New  Hampshire  became  the 
ninth  state  to  adopt  the  federal  Constitution,  thus  sealing 
the  work  of  the  Convention. 

New  Hampshire  was  the  first  state  to  have  a  written  Con- 
stitution. It  was  on  New  Hampshire  soil  that  the  first  overt 
act  of  the  Revolution  took  place  and  not  at  Lexington,  Massa- 
chusetts— it  was  the  taking  of  Fort  Willliam  and  Mary  by 
the  New  Hampshire  patriots  under  John  Sullivan  and  John 
Langdon.  And  there  was  secured  the  gunpowder  which  was 
used  at  Bunker  Hill.  New  Hampshire  had  more  men  at 
Bunker  Hill  than  Massachusetts.  It  was  in  Portsmouth  har- 
bor that  the  first  warship  of  this  country,  the  Ranger,  was 
built.  The  first  time  that  the  flag  of  the  nation  was  raised  at 
a  masthead  it  was  raised  at  Portsmouth  on  this  ship,  and  the 
first  time  the  flag  was  seen  abroad  was  when  John  Paul  Jones 
in  this  ship  carried  the  news  of  Burgoyne's  surrender  to 
France.  The  first  public  library  in  this  country  and  in  the 
world  was  that  established  in  the  town  of  Peterborough  in 
1833,  and  the  first  public  library  to  open  on  Sunday  was  this 
same  Peterborough  public  library.  The  first  state  to  make 
an  effort  to  encourage  public  libraries  was  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  the  first  state  to  make  appropriations  for 
the  building  up  of  public  libraries  was  the  state  of  New 
21 


322    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Hampshire,  and  the  first  state  to  have  a  state  library  was 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  The  men  of  New  Hampshire 
who  made  the  state  first  in  these  historic  events  were  not  men 
of  local  prejudices,  with  visions  warped  by  thoughts  of  how 
their  acts  would  affect  their  towns.  If  under  the  leadership 
of  the  fathers  and  their  descendants  New  Hampshire  has 
been  first  in  great  events,  then  I  appeal  to  you  as  men  and 
leaders  of  to-day  that  by  your  acts  she  may  not  be  the  last 
state  to  abrogate  a  system  of  representation  which  everybody 
acknowledges  to  be  unequal  and  unjust. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — I  had  not  thought  to  add 
one  word  to  this  discussion,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the  gen- 
tlemen who  have  been  depicted  in  such  glowing  terms  by 
the  delegate  who  has  just  spoken — that  those  men  who  have 
accomplished  all  those  wonders  for  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, were  brilliant  enough  to  make  us  a  Constitution  under 
which  we  have  lived  and  shall  continue  to  live. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  gentlemen  who  have  been  arguing 
upon  this  question  have  wandered  away  from  the  principle 
that  the  founders  of  our  Constitution  had.  It  seems  to  me 
that  it  was  the  idea  of  the  framers  of  this  Constitution,  and 
for  more  than  100  years  it  has  been  the  principle  of  New 
Hampshire,  that  the  little  country  towns  had  the  right 
equally  with  the  larger  towns  to  be  heard  in  their  own  de- 
fense in  this,  what  is  called  the  general  court  of  the  state. 

We  have  been  told  about  these  small  legislatures  of  other 
states.  Do  we  want  to  adopt  them?  Are  we  ashamed  of 
the  legislation  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire;  does  it  not 
compare  with  Maine  and  with  New  Jersey,  where  their  gen- 
eral law  for  the  incorporation  of  companies  is  regarded  with 
suspicion?  Does  it  not  stand  favorably  with  Delaware, 
where  they  have  not  been  able  to  elect  a  senator  for  years  on 
account  of  bribery  and  corruption?  Does  it  not  stand  favor- 
ably with  the  state  of  Montana,  where  the  United  States 
senate  sent  a  senator  elected  from  that  state  back  to  his  home, 
and  said  that  he  was  elected  by  the  corrupt  use  of  money? 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  323 

Have  they  ever,  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  tarnished  our 
fair  fame  with  such  corruption  or  such  disclosures  as  that? 
It  seems  to  me  that  the  people  of  Grafton  county  who  elect 
forty-two  representatives  to  this  legislature  while  the  city  of 
Manchester,  casting  less  votes,  send  forty-nine,  are  not  in- 
equably  represented,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  cities  of 
this  state  are  well  cared  for.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  the  city 
of  Concord  can  send  representatives  to  the  legislature  based 
upon  the  population,  including  the  insane  at  the  asylum  and 
the  criminals  at  the  state  prison,  the  country  towns  ought  to 
be  able  to  at  least  send  one  representative,  based  upon  their 
legitimate  population,  and  that  they  have  the  right  to  be 
heard,  and  that  they  should  be  heard  in  this  legislature. 

I  believe  this  Convention  is  ready  at  this  time  and  will 
continue  ready  to  act  upon  the  Constitution  as  framed  by 
the  fathers,  and  which  has  been  good  enough  to  take  good 
care  of  us  and  give  us  good  laws  for  the  last  one  hundred 
years. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — Mr.  Chairman,  I  have  no  desire 
at  this  time  of  the  discussion  to  attempt  a  speech,  utter  an 
oration,  or  do  anything  except  make  a  very  few  suggestions 
in  regard  to  the  question  before  this  body.  I  have  been 
to-day,  from  early  morning,  coming  from  my  home  up  in 
the  county  of  Coos,  where  the  mercury  is  20°  below  zero  and 
the  wind  is  blowing  100  miles  an  hour. 

I  was  glad  when  I  came  into  this  body  this  afternoon  to 
hear  the  remarks  of  one  of  the  delegates  from  Laconia,  Mr. 
Busiel.  I  remember  the  last  time  he  and  I  addressed  a  delib- 
erative assembly  in  this  hall.  It  was  on  an  occasion  when 
we  were  endeavoring  to  obtain  an  appropriation  to  build  the 
structure  that  now  stands  over  Endicott  Eock  at  The  Weirs, 
to  keep  intact  the  old  ideas  and  love  of  the  old  things;  to 
strengthen  that  love  and  veneration  in  the  state  for  that 
which  is  old  and  which  existed  at  its  foundation. 

I  have  heard  discussed  to-day,  or  occasional  reference  made 
to  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  from  Acworth,  Mr.  Mitchell, 


324    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

that  residents  of  the  country  towns  desire  continuance  of 
the  present  town  system  because  and  so  they  might  occasion- 
ally come  to  the  legislature  and  have  the  benefits  of  office. 
That  gentleman  did  not  originate  that  idea  of  representation. 
It  exists  all  over  the  state,  and  I  think  as  strongly  in  the 
If-rger  towns  as  in  the  smaller  towns. 

Now  I  know  that  the  country  towns  are  poor,  but  I  do  not 
suppose  any  one  desires  in  any  way  to  criticise  them  for  that 
fact.  Poverty  is  not  crime,  and  not  the  worst  of  misfortunes. 
Some  of  the  best  things  in  the  world  come  from  the  sacrifices 
and  the  self-denial  occasioned  by  poverty,  which  breeds  that 
virtue  that  raises  individual  and  community  above  tempta- 
tion and  discouraging  environments.  If  we  have  to  con- 
tribute sometimes,  as  stated,  to  get  a  man  a  suit  of  clothes  to 
send  him  to  the  legislature,  it  shows  a  kindly  feeling,  a  feeling 
to  aid  each  other,  and  I  do  not  think,  were  that  so,  it  would 
be  any  argument  whatever  against  country  towns,  or  against 
the  town  system.  The  country  towns  would  still  have  the 
right  to  be  heard  in  our  legislatures  and  to  be  represented 
therein. 

The  other  day,  when  speaking  on  this  question,  I  did  not 
then  attempt  to  argue  it,  although  I  said  I  was  in  favor  of 
the  town  system  and  trusted  it  would  be  perpetuated,  and 
made  the  suggestion  that  I  hoped,  by  concurrent  action  a:id 
mutual  concession,  we  could  come  together  on  some  ground 
that  would  be  satisfactory  to  all.  That  is  what  I  now  hope 
we  can  do,  and  I  believe  we  can  do  it. 

I  have  listened  with  interest  to  the  polished,  scholarly,  and 
finished  oration  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford; 
he  has  handled  the  debate  on  his  side  of  the  question  with 
great  clearness  and  ability.  He  says  that  if  the  town  system 
is  retained,  the  inequalities  will  be  greater  than  they  are  now. 
I  have  merely  this  to  say,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  that 
I  do  not  believe,  in  the  first  place,  there  was  a  great  or  crying 
demand  for  this  Convention.  By  no  means  was  this  Con- 
vention called  by  an  overwhelming  majority  of  votes.  The 
people  of  New  Hampshire  did  indeed  vote  for  the  Convention, 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  325 

but  it  was  by  a  very  small  majority,  which  fact  would  indi- 
cate that  there  was  no  great  demand  that  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives should  be  reduced  at  this  time.  I  think  that  that 
is  a  fair  inference;  that  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  do  not 
care  much  about  this  proposed  amendment. 

Another  thing,  I  do  not  think  that  we  are  to  be,  or  should 
be,  in  any  manner  controlled  or  influenced  in  this  matter  be- 
cause Maine,  or  some  other  state,  or  other  community,  has 
acted  differently.  It  has  always  been  a  proud  thing  to  me 
that  New  Hampshire  was  an  independent  state.  She  has 
not  followed,  but  has  generally  led.  New  Hampshire  raised 
the  regiment  that  defeated  Baum  at  Bennington — and  ham- 
pered the  operations  of  Burgoyne  in  1777;  while  the  conti- 
nental congress  hesitated  in  uncertainty  John  Langdon,  the 
Portsmouth  merchant,  pledged  his  fortune  to  equip  men,  if 
John  Stark,  still  smarting  from  injustice  done  his  military 
services,  would  lead  them;  the  result  of  this  independent  ac- 
tion outside  all  example  or  precedent,  being  the  victory  at 
Saratoga,  which  led  to  the  alliance  with  France  and  the  train 
of  events  securing  our  independence;  this  in  reply  to  citations 
by  Mr.  Lyford  of  patriotic  events  referred  to  in  support  of 
his  line  of  argument  for  the  district  system. 

New  Hampshire  has  always  prided  herself  on  her  inde- 
pendence, and  whether  we  have  a  legislature  of'  200  men  or 
400  men  it  is  her  concern  and  that  of  nobody  else. 

As  I  have  said,  I  do  not  think  there  is  a  great  demand  for 
the  reduction  of  this  house.  In  some  way  the  feeling  has 
grown  up  in  certain  quarters  that  it  is  absolutely  necessary 
to  reduce  the  house  of  representatives,  but  I  do  not  know 
why.  What  difference  does  it  make  if  we  have  to  put  in  a 
dozen  or  so  more  people  and  more  chairs  in  the  corners  of 
this  room  ?  For  one,  I  believe  there  is  strength  in  popular 
and  large  assemblies.  I  do  not  think  the  examples  of  states 
in  the  West  with  100  representatives,  or  the  example  of 
Massachusetts  with  the  district  system,  or  of  Connecticut  or 
Vermont  with  one  representative  for  every  town,  has  any- 
thing to  do  with  us.  We  are  to  judge  for  ourselves. 


326     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Now  it  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  we  cannot  lay 
New  Hampshire  on  this  table,  and  with  a  pair  of  dividers,  a 
rule,  and  a  pencil  mark  it  off  into  so  many  squares,  each  of 
which  shall  have  a  representative.  I  do  not  believe  that  that 
is  the  theory  upon  which  our  present  municipalities  and 
towns  have  been  formed.  I  do  not  believe  it  is  the  theory 
upon  which  we  should  form  districts  for  the  purpose  of  voting 
for  representatives.  I  believe  that  the  formation  of  this 
state  and  of  this  nation  was  by  the  coming  together  of  differ- 
ent towns  and  communities  in  this  commonwealth  and  others, 
to  make  a  sovereign  state,  subject  to  the  rights  that  they 
delegated  in  the  federal  Constitution.  The  great  towns  and 
the  small  towns,  joining  together,  made  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  what  it  is,  but  still  retained  their  independence  as 
little  republics,  and  have  retained  it  to  this  day,  and  I  trust 
that  they  will  continue  to  retain  that  independence.  I  trust 
that  this  feeling  of  independence  may  exist  among  the  differ- 
ent municipalities  of  New  Hampshire,  and  not  decay,  that 
they  be  mixed  together  in  an  amalgamated  mass,  divided  into 
squares  and  parcelled  out  in  equal  sizes  for  the  purpose  of 
electing  representatives.  They  as  republics,  however  small, 
came  together  and  made  an  indissoluble  union  of  indestruct- 
ible states,  they  should  be  continued  in  their  independence, 
and  no  town  or  city  of  New  Hampshire  should  lose 
its  individuality  and  be  lost  amid  the  other  municipali- 
ties of  the  state.  I  believe  it  is  the  independence  of  the 
country  towns  that  has  nursed  and  strengthened  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  young  men  of  those  towns.  Our  young  men 
come  from  such  towns  to  the  cities,  and  are  proud  of  what 
they  accomplish  there,  proud  of  the  industries,  thrift,  and 
progress  of  the  cities  that  are  largely  recruited  from  the 
energy  and  the  enterprise  of  these  young  men  from  the  towns. 
It  is  to  the  towns  that  the  cities  look  for  new  blood,  and  it 
is  the  people  once  from  the  country  that  will  be  financiers  of 
great  industries,  that  will  run  railroads  and  carry  on  com- 
merce throughout  the  country.  These  are  important  fac- 
tors. I  am  entirely  in  earnest  in  bringing  this  matter  before 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  327 

you,  and  you  will  see  the  connection  when  I  say  that  it  is  the 
independence  of  the  different  municipalities  that  gives  to 
those  communities  these  sturdy,  rugged  men  that  help  on  the 
progress  of  the  country. 

I  have  only  one  or  two  things  more  to  say.  It  seems  to 
me  that  this  discussion  has  shown  that  the  trend  and  drift 
of  this  Convention  is  to  maintain  the  town  system  of  repre- 
sentation. It  seems  to  me,  however,  that  it  is  best  to  debate 
further  and  to  further  discuss  this  question  in  order  that  we 
may  come  to  a  point  where  we  can  agree  upon  some  particular 
bill.  And  as  far  as  I  am  concerned,  I  believe  that  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  which 
makes  the  population  necessary  for  the  first  representative 
600  and  the  increasing  mean  2,000,  is  probably  as  good  a 
proposition  as  has  been  placed  before  this  Convention.  It 
has  been  said  by  some  of  the  distinguished  gentlemen  on  the 
floor  that  the  effect  of  that  would  be  to  do  injustice  to  the 
cities.  I  think  they  must  have  weighed  their  words  care- 
lessly when  they  made  that  statement,  because  I  know  that 
the  larger  towns  would  lose  some  in  representation.  The 
talk  is  to  reduce  this  house  100  men,  and  they  say  that  the 
plan  of  Mr.  Barton  would  take  it  all  from  the  larger  towns 
and  cities.  One  man  whom  I  very  greatly  respect  told  me 
that  that  would  be  very  unjust.  I  have  said  all  the  time  that 
if  we  could  compromise  we  should  compromise.  I  believe  I 
have  also  said  that  a  great  statesman  remarked  that  compro- 
mise was  the  essence  of  politics.  I  thoroughly  believe  that 
to  be  so,  and  I,  for  my  part,  am  willing  to  do  what  I  can  do 
to  bring  about  a  compromise  that  will  be  assented  to  by  all 
sides.  If  this  is  unjust  to  the  larger  towns,  and  it  is  in  a  way 
— my  town  has  three  representatives  now  in  the  house  of 
representatives,  and  by  this  proposed  amendment  we  should 
lose  one, — if  it  is  unjust  to  the  larger  towns,  it  might  be  well 
to  compromise  by  raising  the  number  of  population  necessary 
for  the  first  representative  to  800.  I  have  no  right,  perhaps, 
to  say  what  the  people  of  my  town  would  do;  but  I  believe 
that  they  would  assent  to  this  proposition,  and  I  think  that 


328      JOTJBNAL   OF   CONSTITUTIONAL   CONVENTION. 

the  other  large  towns  and  the  large  wards  of  the  cities  should 
also  assent  to  it. 

But  I  am  willing,  gentlemen,  individually,  to  give  some- 
thing as  well  as  to  ask  others  to  give.  I  do  not  thing  it  ought 
to  be  all  one  way,  and  I  make  this  suggestion  in  furtherance 
of  this  idea  of  relinquishing  rights  in  order  to  arrive  at  some 
satisfactory  conclusion. 

It  makes  a  great  deal  of  difference  when  you  take  a  repre- 
sentative from  a  town  whether  it  is  the  only  representative 
the  town  has  or  whether  it  is  one  of  several.  I  have  not 
heard  this  suggestion  made  on  the  floor,  but  I  think  it  is  one 
that  ought  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  Take  my  town 
of  Lancaster.  It  has  three  representatives;  it  makes  a  great 
deal  more  difference  to  the  adjoining  town  of  Dalton  in 
carrying  out  this  idea,  whether  she  loses  one  representative 
and  thus  loses  the  only  one  she  has,  than  it  does  to  the  town 
of  Lancaster  to  lose  one  representative  and  have  two  left. 

I  assume  that  it  is  true  that  in  matters  before  the  legis- 
lature the  interests  of  a  town  might  be  well  guarded  even 
though  she  did  not  have  a  representative  to  vote  upon  every 
question,  but  my  argument  is  based  upon  the  broad  principle 
of  the  independence  of  the  municipality  and  upon  the  effect 
that  independence  has  upon  individual  character.  And 
I  beg  to  say  to  the  delegates  from  the  larger  towns  and  the 
large  wards  in  the  cities  having  a  surplus  number,  that  it 
makes  a  great  difference  to  the  small  towns  whether,  if  the 
town  system  is  to  be  retained,  they  are  deprived  the  benefit 
of  direct  representation  except  occasionally  and  at  less  fre- 
quent periods.  I  believe  that  the  government  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, that  the  prosperity  of  New  Hampshire,  the  honor  and 
repute  of  New  Hampshire,  are  based  largely  upon  the  repre- 
sentative system  she  has  had,  and  I  should  feel  that  it  would 
be  a  great  detriment  to  her  if  systems  were  changed  so  that 
the  independence  of  these  little  republics  be  lost. 

This  you  may  consider  to  be  sentiment,  but  sentiment  is 
of  importance.  As  some  one  has  said,  "  Let  me  write  the 
songs  of  a  country  and  I  care  not  who  makes  its  laws."  I 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  829 

believe  sentiment  to  be  stronger  than  all  the  other  forces 
that  rule  the  world,  sentiment  will  largely  control  this  ques- 
tion, as  I  believe,  when  it  comes  before  the  people.  It  is  true 
that  there  is  a  feeling  among  the  people  that  their  legislature 
is  of  advantage  for  the  purposes  of  education,  and  there  is  also 
a  feeling  among  the  country  towns  that  it  is  an  honor  to 
send  a  representative  to  the  legislature,  so  that  by  that  means 
they  are  retaining  their  independence  as  a  town  and  as  a 
municipality.  If  we  do  things  here  that  are  not  in  accord 
with  that  sentiment,  if  we  do  things  here  that  are  unsatis- 
factory to  the  people  of  the  state,  they  are  going  to  repudiate 
our  acts  when  they  come  to  vote  upon  the  amendment.  The 
only  way  by  which  we  can  avoid  this  result  is  by  consultation 
by  both  sides  and  a  getting  together  upon  some  satisfactory 
proposition  that  will  meet  the  reasonable  desires  and  senti- 
ments of  the  people.  I  hope  the  Convention  to-morrow  will 
vote  to  retain  the  town  system,  that  concessions  will  be  made 
by  gentlemen  representing  the  towns  so  that  it  will  be  satis- 
factory to  the  cities,  and  that  concessions  will  be  made  by 
representatives  from  the  cities  so  that  it  will  be  satisfactory 
to  the  towns,  and  that  by  such  mutual  concessions  we  shall 
have  a  measure  adopted  that  will  be  approved  by  the  people 
and  will  continue, — the  system  that  has  had  much  to  do 
with  the  making  of  New  Hampshire  what  she  is,  and  will 
keep  the  independence  of  our  little  republics  unimpaired. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Acworth — Mr  Chairman  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Committee:  I  little  thought  that  I  should  come  before 
you  again  to  right  things  that  seem  to  be  going  wrong.  I 
have  come  down  here  to  see  if  I  could  make  some  things 
right  with  you,  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Little, 
and  with  you,  the  gentleman  from  Laconia,  Mr.  Busiel,  and 
with  you,  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford.  The 
idea  is  going  out  through  this  committee  that  the  rural  towns 
are  blaming  your  cities  for  something  in  regard  to  the  quali- 
fications of  your  representatives.  I  wish  to  make  that  right. 
I  represent  a  rural  town,  and  the  town  where  I  live  is  on4y 


330    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

fifty-six  miles  from  Concord.  I  left  here  Friday  night  to  go 
that  fifty-six  miles,  and  I  never  arrived  at  my  place  until  half- 
past  twelve  o'clock  Saturday.  That  is  the  country  that  I 
live  in,  so  you  cannot  expect  much  from  me;  but  I  want  the 
sympathy  of  the  cities,  and  I  will  tell  you  why.  I  will  tell 
you  why  we  want  the  sympathy  of  the  cities  and  the  aid  of 
the  cities  to  help  our  country  towns.  The  reason  is  this:  we 
have  contributed  to  your  cities  largely.  Take  the  city  of 
Keene.  The  business  men  that  represent  Keene  to-day — 
they  came  from  Acworth.  Take  Manchester.  The  business 
men  of  Manchester  came  from  Acworth.  And  Nashua — the 
business  men  of  Nashua  came  from  Acworth.  And  then, 
gentlemen,  we  will  take  Portsmouth  and  see  the  men  that 
we  have  presented  Portsmouth  with  from  our  town.  Why, 
gentlemen,  we  are  contributing  all  the  time,  and  I  will  tell 
you,  gentlemen  of  the  committee  here,  that  that  is  just  why 
we  are  obliged  to  come  before  you  to-day  and  claim  that  we 
want  a  representative — because  we  have  contributed  so  largely 
to  your  cities  that  you  have  reduced  our  population. 

Now,  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  I  want  you  to  stand 
up  for  us.  I  pray  that  you  help  us  and  stand  up  for  the 
proposition  of  retaining  the  population  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative at  600  as  a  basis,  and  then  the  increasing  mean  at 
2,000. 

Now  you  gentlemen  from  the  cities  say  that  under  that 
system  the  legislature  will  increase  pretty  soon,  and  we  shall 
have  to  have  another  Constitutional  Convention.  Gentlemen 
of  the  Committee,  don't  you  think  to-day  that  the  growth 
and  the  rapid  strides  that  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  is 
making  every  year  will  make  it  necessary  to  call  a  Consti- 
tutional Convention  in  twenty-five  years  in  any  event?  Cer- 
tainly we  shall  want  it  then,  and  you  will  want  it,  and  it  is 
no  argument  to  say  that  because  if  we  retain  this  system  we 
shall  have  to  have  a  Constitutional  Convention  soon  we 
should  therefore  change. 

And  so,  gentlemen,  I  come  here  and  for  the  country  towns 
I  ask  your  aid.  The  country  towns  have  aided  the  cities. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  331 

You  in  the  past  have  looked  to  us  for  our  aid,  and  now  we 
look  to  you  for  yours.  We  want  to  be  represented  in  the 
legislature  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 

I  do  not  believe  in  the  district  system,  and  I  will  explain 
that  in  my  feeble  way.  In  our  section,  senatorial  district  No. 
8,  did  you  ever  hear  that  Acworth  ever  sent  a  senator  from 
this  district? 

A  Delegate — You  have  sent  three  or  four. 

Mr.  Mitchell — Excuse  me,  perhaps  we  have,  but  we  are 
growing  so  few,  we  are  decreasing  so  every  year  and  so  fast, 
for  the  purposes  of  furnishing  men  to  the  wards  in  the  cities 
of  the  states,  that  it  is  very  unlikely  that  we  shall  ever  send 
another,  and  that  is  why  you  want  to  give  us  a  representative 
now  on  the  basis  of  600.  It  will  not  be  but  a  little  time  when 
even  on  that  basis  we  shall  lose  our  one  representative,  and 
if  we  should  have  a  Constitutional  Convention  again  you 
would  probably  not  see  a  delegate  from  Acworth  at  such  a 
Convention.  What  we  want  is  that  you  should  help  us  and 
encourage  us,  and  see  if  we  cannot  in  some  way  increase  our 
population  in  the  town  of  Acworth. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  move  that  the  committee  do  now 
arise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

Motion  prevailed. 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Briggs,  chairman,  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
reported  that  the  committee  having  had  under  consideration 
the  various  proposed  amendments  to  the  Constitution  relating 
to  the  legislative  department,  had  come  to  no  conclusion 
thereon  and  asked  leave  to  sit  again. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Mr.  Foster  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution: 


332    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Eesolved,  That  article  thirty-six  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  be 
amended  by  striking  out  the  words  "  and  never  for  more  than 
one  year  at  a  time,"  so  that  said  article,  as  amended,  shall 
read  as  follows: 

Economy  being  a  most  essential  virtue  in  all  states,  es- 
pecially in  a  young  one,  no  pension  shall  be  granted  but  in 
consideration  of  actual  services;  and  such  pensions  ought  to 
be  granted  with  great  caution  by  the  legislature. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Amend  Constitution,  part  second,  article  sixty-six,  which 
reads  as  follows: 

"  The  secretary,  treasurer,  and  commissary-general  shall 
be  chosen  by  joint  ballot  by  the  senators  and  representatives, 
assembled  in  one  room." 

Strike  out  "shall  be  chosen  by  joint  ballot  of  the  senators 
and  representatives  assembled  in  one  room." 

And  insert: 

The  secretary  of  state,  state  treasurer,  commissionary-gen- 
eral,  and  railroad  commissioners  shall  be  elected  by  the  people 
biennially. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department. 

Mr.  Farrington  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

Amend  Constitution,  part  second,  article  ninety-six,  which 
reads  as  follows: 

"  In  all  cases  where  sums  of  money  are  mentioned  in  this 
Constitution,  the  value  thereof  shall  be  computed  in  silver 
at  six  shillings  and  eight  pence  per  ounce." 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  333 

Strike  out  "the  value  thereof  shall  be  computed  in  silver 
at  six  shillings  and  eight  pence  per  ounce/'  and  insert,  the 
United  States  gold  dollar. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  other  Proposed 
Amendments. 

Mr.  Colby  of  Hanover  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  amended  by  striking  out 
articles  ninety-eight,  ninety-nine,  and  one  hundred  of  part 
second  and  inserting  in  lieu  thereof  the  following: 

Any  amendment  or  amendments  to  this  Constitution  may 
be  proposed  in  the  senate  or  house  of  representatives,  and  if 
the  same  shall  be  agreed  to  by  a  majority  of  the  members 
elected  to  each  house,  such  proposed  amendment  or  amend- 
ments shall  then  be  entered  on  their  respective  journals,  with 
the  yeas  and  nays  taken  thereon,  and  referred  to  the  legisla- 
ture then  next  to  be  chosen,  and  shall  be  duly  published;  and 
if  in  the  legislature  next  afterwards  to  be  chosen  such  pro- 
posed amendment  or  amendments  shall  be  agreed  to  by  a 
majority  of  the  members  elected  to  each  house  and  the  same 
be  recorded  on  their  journals,  and  the  yeas  and  nays  taken 
thereon  as  aforesaid,  then  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legisla- 
ture to  submit  such  proposed  amendment  or  amendments  to 
the  people,  and  if  two  thirds  of  the  qualified  voters  of  this 
state  present  and  voting  thereon  at  meetings  duly  called  and 
warned  for  that  purpose,  shall  approve  and  ratify  the  same, 
then  such  amendment  or  amendments  shall  become  a  part  of 
the  Constitution  from  and  after  the  first  day  of  January  next 
after  such  approval.  Provided  that  if  more  than  one  amend- 
ment be  submitted,  they  shall  be  submitted  in  such  manner 
and  form  that  the  people  may  vote  for  or  against  each  amend- 
ment proposed  to  any  and  every  provision  of  the  Constitution 
separately. 

At  the  general  election  to  be  held  in  the  year  one  thousand 
nine  hundred  and  twenty,  and  every  twentieth  year  there- 


334    JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

after,  and  also  at  such  times  as  the  legislature  may  by  law 
provide,  the  question:  "Shall  there  be  a  Convention  to  re- 
vise the  Constitution  and  amend  the  same?"  shall  be  sub- 
mitted to  the  qualified  voters  of  the  state;  and  in  case  a  ma- 
jority of  those  voting  thereon  shall  decide  in  favor  of  a  Con- 
vention for  such  purpose,  the  delegates  shall  be  chosen  in  the 
same  manner  and  apportioned  as  the  representatives  to  the 
general  court,  provided  that  each  and  every  town  shall  be 
entitled  to  send  at  least  one  delegate.  The  delegates  so 
elected  shall  convene  at  the  capitol  on  the  first  Tuesday  of 
April  next  ensuing  after  their  election,  and  shall  continue 
their  session  until  the  business  of  such  Convention  shall  have 
been  completed.  Every  delegate  shall  receive  for  his  ser- 
vices three  dollars  per  day  and  the  same  mileage  as  shall  then 
be  payable  to  the  members  of  the  general  court.  A  majority 
of  the  Convention  shall  constitute  a  quorum  for  the  transac- 
tion of  business,  and  no  amendment  to  the  Constitution  shall 
be  submitted  for  approval  to  the  electors  as  hereinafter  pro- 
vided, unless  by  the  assent  of  a  majority  of  all  the  delegates 
elected  to  the  Convention,  the  yeas  and  nays  being  entered 
upon  the  journal  to  be  kept.  The  Convention  shall  have  the 
power  to  appoint  such  officers,  employees,  and  assistants  as 
it  may  deem  necessary,  and  fix  their  compensation  and  to 
provide  for  printing  of  its  documents,  journal,  and  proceed- 
ings. The  Convention  shall  determine  the  rules  of  its  own 
proceedings,  choose  its  own  officers,  and  be  the  judge  of  the 
election,  returns,  and  qualifications  of  its  members.  In  case 
of  a  vacancy,  by  death,  resignation  or  other  cause,  of  any  dele- 
gate elected  to  the  Convention,  such  vacancy  shall  be  filled  by 
a  vote  of  the  remaining  delegates  from  the  county  in  which 
such  vacancy  shall  occur. 

Any  proposed  Constitution  or  Constitutional  amendment 
which  shall  have  been  adopted  by  such  Convention,  shall  be 
submitted  to  the  qualified  voters  of  the  state  in  the  manner 
provided  by  such  Convention,  at  the  next  general  election 
after  the  adjournment  of  such  Convention.  Upon  the  rati- 
fication of  such  Constitution  or  Constitutional  amendments 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  9,  1902.  335 

in  the  manner  provided  in  the  last  preceding  paragraph,  such 
Constitution  or  Constitutional  amendments  shall  go  into 
effect  on  the  first  day  of  January  next  after  such  approval. 

Any  amendment  proposed  by  a  Constitutional  Convention 
relating  to  the  same  subject  as  an  amendment  proposed  by 
the  legislature,  coincidently  submitted  to  the  qualified  voters 
for  ratification,  at  the  general  election  to  be  held  in  the  year 
one  thousand  nine  hundred  and  twenty,  or  at  any  subsequent 
election,  shall,  if  approved,  be  deemed  to  supersede  the 
amendment  so  proposed  by  the  legislature. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  other  Proposed 
Amendments. 

Mr.  Eogers  of  Tilton  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  the  Constitution  be  so  amended  that  all 
steam  railroads  of  the  state  shall  be  required  to  furnish  free 
transportation  over  all  their  lines  within  the  state,  to  the 
governor,  councilors,  justices  of  the  supreme  and  superior 
courts,  attorney-general,  secretary  of  state,  state  treasurer, 
adjutant-general,  railroad  commissioners,  bank  commission- 
ers, insurance  commissioners,  commissioners  of  labor  and  the 
members  of  the  honorable  senate  and  house  of  representatives 
during  the  sessions  of  the  general  court;  also  delegates  to  all 
Constitutional  Conventions. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  resolution  was 
ordered  printed  and  referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole 
to  be  considered  with  other  resolutions  of  a  similar  character. 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  To  amend  part  second  of  the  Constitution  en- 
titled "  Council/'  by  striking  out  articles  fifty-nine,  sixty, 
sixty-one,  sixty-two,  sixty-three,  and  sixty-four. 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Bill 
of  Eights  and  Executive  Department. 


336    JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Colby  of  Hanover  offered  the  following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  article  eleven  of  the  Bill  of  Eights  be 
amended  by  adding  at  the  end  thereof  the  following: 

"  Provided,  that  the  privileges  of  an  elector  shall  be  for- 
feited by  a  conviction  of  bribery,  forgery,  perjury,  dueling, 
fraudulent  bankruptcy,  theft,  or  other  offense  for  which  an 
infamous  punishment  is  inflicted,  or  of  any  wilful  violation 
of  the  election  laws,  the  general  court  may,  by  vote  of  two 
thirds  of  the  members  of  each  house,  restore  the  privileges  of 
an  elector  to  those  wTho  have  forfeited  them  by  a  conviction 
of  crime." 

Ordered  printed  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  other  Proposed 
Amendments. 

The  President  announced  that  the  hour  for  the  special  or- 
der had  arrived,  namely,  the  hearing  granted  to  the  Woman's 
Suffrage  association  of  New  Hampshire.  The  President  in- 
troduced Miss  Chase,  president  of  the  Woman's  Suffrage  asso- 
ciation of  New  Hampshire,  who  with  Henry  B.  Blackwell, 
corresponding  secretary  of  the  New  England  Woman's  Suf- 
frage association,  Lucy  Stone  Blackwell,  recording  secretary 
of  the  New  England  Woman's  Suffrage  association,  and  Carrie 
Chapman  Catt,  president  of  the  National  Woman's  Suffrage 
association,  addressed  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner,  the  proposed 
amendment  introduced  by  him,  to  amend  article  twenty-seven 
of  the  Constitution,  was  taken  from  the  table  and  made  a 
special  order  for  Thursday,  December  11,  at  11  o'clock  in  the 
forenoon. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  the  Convention  adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  337 

WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902. 
The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 
Prayer  was  offered  by  the  chaplain. 

The  reading  of  the  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  begun, 
when  on  motion  of  Mr.  Wetherell  of  Exeter,  the  further 
reading  was  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  Walker  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Ju- 
dicial Department,  to  whom  was  referred  a  resolution  offered 
by  Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter,  relating  to  solicitors,  asked  leave 
to  report  the  same  in  a  new  draft  as  follows,  and  to  recom- 
mend its  adoption: 

Resolved,  That  article  seventy  of  part  second  of  the  Consti- 
tution be  amended  by  striking  out  the  word  "solicitors," 
and  that  the  following  article  be  added  to  the  Constitution: ' 

The  county  solicitors  shall  be  appointed  by  the  superior 
court  and  commissioned  by  the  governor  and  shall  hold  office 
for  a  term  of  five  years.  They  shall  be  subject  to  removal 
at  any  time  by  the  superior  court  on  the  ground  of  physical 
or  mental  disability,  or  for  cause  shown,  after  due  notice 
and  hearing.  Vacancies  occurring  by  reason  of  the  removal, 
death,  resignation,  or  expiration  of  the  term  of  office  of  any 
solicitor  shall  be  filled  in  like  manner,  the  persons  so  ap- 
pointed and  commissioned  to  hold  office  for  a  term  of  five, 
years  from  the  date  of  their  appointment.  The  first  appoint- 
ments under  this  article  shall  be  made  to  take  effect  on  the 
first  day  of  April,  1905. 

^  The  report  was  accepted  and  the  question  being  stated: 
Shall  the  resolution  as  reported  by  the  committee  in  a  new 
draft  be  adopted,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  the  same 
was  referred  for  consideration  to  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

22 


338    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  the  committee 
resolved  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  consider  the 
various  resolutions  relating  to  representation. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Little  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

The  Chairman — We  are  in  session  as  a  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  and  I  await  the  pleasure  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Woodbury  of  Woodstock — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentle- 
men of  the  Committee:  It  is  not  my  purpose  to  require 
very  much  of  your  time,  but  a  few  thoughts  have  occurred 
to  me  which  I  consider  it  my  duty  to  present  for  your  con- 
sideration. As  the  hour  approaches  which  is  to  decide  in 
the  minds  of  this  Convention  whether  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  shall  abolish  the  town  system  or  not,  the  more  I 
feel  it  my  duty  to  express  the  wishes  of  my  constituency  in 
regard  to  the  matter. 

My  original  plan  in  regard  to  the  house  of  representatives 
appeared  in  an  edition  of  the  Manchester  Union  of  November 
19,  and  it  was  precisely  the  same  plan  as  the  proposition  in- 
troduced by  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough,  Mr.  Scott. 
After  giving  the  question  more  thought,  and  after  having 
consulted  several  good,  conservative  men  in  regard  to  the 
matter,  I  was  made  to  believe  that  there  was  more  equity  on 
the  basis  of  legal  voters  than  upon  the  basis  of  population, 
and  I  am  of  that  opinion  now.  I  believe  that  upon  that  basis 
the  representation  in  the  house  could  be  kept  nearer  a  stated 
number  than  on  the  basis  of  population. 

I  did  not  make  any  provision  in  my  resolution  as  to  how 
the  number  of  legal  voters  should  be  determined.  I  thought 
if  this  proposition  was  worthy  of  consideration  on  the  part  of 
this  honorable  body,  of  course  it  would  be  open  to  amend- 
ment and  improvement.  Two  plans  .have  presented  them- 
selves to  me  which  would  seem  feasible:  First,  base  the  num- 
ber of  legal  voters  upon  the  vote  cast  for  governor  at  the 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  339 

last  election  preceding  the  election  of  the  representatives  to 
the  legislature.  Second,  to  empower  towns  to  provide  a 
commission  representing  equally  the  two  largest  parties  in 
the  state,  to  take  a  census  of  the  legal  voters  and  return  the 
same  to  the  secretary  of  state  prior  to  the  convening  of  the 
legislature,  and  upon  the  return  that  the  secietary  of  state 
sends  to  the  legislature  the  legislature  would  then  be  enabled 
to  regulate  its  membership  according  to  the  resolution  which 
I  have  introduced.  The  legislature  succeeding  the  presi- 
dential election  would  no  doubt  be  numerically  larger  than 
those  that  came  in  an  off  year,  but  in  my  opinion,  based  upon 
the  probable  increase  of  legal  voters,  the  number  would  not 
exceed  300  within  the  next  thirty  years. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  it 
is  not  my  purpose  to  very  strenuously  urge  the  adoption  of 
the  resolution  I  presented  to  you.  My  constituents  and  my- 
self believe  it  to  be  a  step  in  maintaining  and  strengthening 
this  time-honored  Constitution  and  system  of  town  repre- 
sentation. But  any  system  which  the  Convention  may  work 
out  that  will  stand  loyal  and  firm  and  recognizes  the  indi- 
vidual towns  of  the  old  Granite  state  will  receive  my  hearty 
cooperation. 

My  second  choice,  and  which  I  am  now  in  favor  of,  if 
the  resolution  that  I  presented  cannot  be  passed,  is  the  plan 
introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton, 
or  by  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough,  Mr.  Scott.  I  think 
that  on  the  basis  of  those  propositions  there  can  be  a  founda- 
tion laid  upon  which  the  Convention  can  get  together  and 
present  a  referendum  to  the  people  which  they  will  ratify. 
I  am  somewhat  of  the  opinion  that  those  two  propositions 
should  be  made  to  meet.  That  is,  they  should  meet  half 
way  between  2,000  and  3,000  for  the  increasing  mean.  One 
provides  for  3,000  for  an  increasing  mean,  and  the  other 
provides  for  2,000  increasing  mean.  Each  plan  has  been 
figured  out  by  those  gentlemen,  and  I  havge  figured  some- 
what upon  the  propositions  myself,  and  the  basis  presented 
by  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  makes  the 


340    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

number  in  the  house  of  representatives  317,  while  the  propo- 
sition of  the  gentleman  from  Peterborough,  Mr.  Scott,  makes 
the  number  289.  I  think  by  having  the  increasing  mean 
somewhere  between  the  3,000  and  the  2,000  we  could-  get  a 
house  of  just  about  300  members,  and  which  will  continue 
to  be  that  number,  or  about  that  number,  for  some  time — 
until  the  next  census  at  any  rate.  I  should  consider  it  better 
to  diminish  the  house  to  300  than  to  begin  with  a  larger  num- 
ber. It  is  an  undisputed  fact  that  what  this  Convention 
is  here  for  is  to  reduce  the  size  of  our  legislature.  I  think 
you  will  all  agree  with  me  that  the  size  of  our  legislature, 
as  well  as  the  size  of  this  Convention,  is  too  large  for  con- 
venience and  comfort,  and  that  the  seats  are  too  closely 
placed  together.  Men  cannot  come  here  to  this  legislature 
and  attend  to  the  business  of  legislation  with  ease,  and  for 
this  reason  if  for  no  other,  the  legislature  should  be  cut  down 
in  number. 

I  am  unalterably  opposed  to  the  district  system  for  two 
reasons.  One  reason  is  that  the  large  towns  and  the  city 
wards  do  not  need  it  in  order  to  retain  their  representation, 
and  the  second  reason  is  because  the  smaller  towns  of  the 
state  do  not  want  it.  Now  if  the  wards  of  the  cities  and  the 
larger  towns  do  not  need  it,  and  the  small  towns  of  the  state 
do  not  want  it,  what  excuse  have  we  to  ask  the  people  to 
ratify  an  amendment  that  they  do  not  need  and  do  not  want? 
If  the  small  towns  of  the  state  should  vote  on  this  district 
system  to-morrow,  how  many  of  them  do  you  suppose  would 
vote  to  adopt  it?  Do  you  think  that  a  majority  of  the  small 
towns  of  the  state  would  vote  to  adopt  the  district  system  to- ' 
morrow,  next  week,  or  at  any  time?  Do  you  think  there 
there  are  ten  towns  that  would  vote  to  adopt  that  system  in 
the  state?  No,  gentlemen,  there  is  not  one  of  the  small 
towns  of  the  state,  if  they  understand  the  question  properly, 
that  would  vote  to  adopt  the  district  system. 

Friends  of  the  proposed  district  system  are  telling  us  about 
Massachusetts,  Connecticut,  and  Vermont.  They  have  said 
nothing  in  favor  of  Connecticut  or  Vermont.  One  gentleman 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  341 

said  upon  this  floor  that  the  state  of  Connecticut  has  been 
striving  for  years  to  get  rid  of  this  town  system.  Now  it 
seems  to  me  if  there  was  a  very  strong  sentiment  in  the  state 
of  Connecticut  to  get  rid  of  the  town  system  they  would  have 
done  it  before  this  time.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  people 
•of  the  state  of  Connecticut  know  what  they  want,  and  if 
they  want  a  change  they  can  make  it. 

But  I  am  not  discussing  what  the  state  of  Massachusetts, 
or  the  state  of  Connecticut,  or  the  state  of  Vermont  want. 
I  am  discussing  what  I  believe  the  people  of  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  want.  I  believe  in  the  efficacy  of  a  large 
house,  and  I  think  it  should  consist  of  at  least  300  members. 
I  do  not  think  that  that  is  any  too  large,  but  think  that  it  is 
large  enough.  A  house  of  representatives  of  that  size  keeps 
the  legislative  branch  of  our  government  close  to  the  heart 
of  our  people,  and  the  nearer  you  get  to  the  heart  of  the 
people  the  nearer  you  stand  upon  the  democratic  principles 
of  the  republic.  What  are  the  objections  to  a  large  house? 
Has  New  Hampshire  done  anything  she  is  ashamed  of?  Has 
she  a  house  journal  that  she  wants  to  cover  up  or  bury  so 
that  her  sister  states  cannot  see  it  ?  I  don't  think  so.  Is  not 
our  financial  condition  to  be  compared  favorably  with  that 
of  any  other  state  in  the  Union?  New  Hampshire  has  pro- 
portionately the  largest  legislative  body  of  law-makers  in  this 
•country.  Go  into  all  of  our  city  wards  and  go  back  among 
the  hills,  go  into  any  small  town,  or  any  town  in  the  state, 
and  you  will  find  men  in  all  walks  of  life  that  are  in  close 
touch  with  the  laws  that  govern  us.  Why?  Because  they 
helped  to  make  them.  They  have  been  to  the  legisla- 
ture, and  have  been  schooled  in  legislation.  Is  this  condi- 
tion of  affairs  detrimental  to  our  state?  Give  us  a  house  of 
300  members  that  come  directly  from  the  rural  towns  and 
the  city  wards  of  our  state,  and  there  will  be  no  fear  of  bad 
legislation.  Does  it  look  as  though  New  Hampshire  was 
misgoverned  when  the  per  capita  deposits  of  her  people  in 
the  savings  banks  is  $146,  and  the  number  of  savings  banks' 
-depositors  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  has  increased 


342     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

500,000  within  the  last  year,  and  when  $1,500,000  has  been 
paid  out  in  dividends  within  a  year?  Is  not  New  Hampshire- 
a  prosperous  state?  New  Hampshire  is  a  small  state,  both  in 
population  and  in  territory,  but  I  believe  she  has  the  largest 
number  of  men  acquainted  with  government  machinery  of 
any  other  state  in  tne  Union.  Confronted  with  these  facts,. 
and  many  others  that  I  might  mention,  what  need  is  there  of 
any  radical  change  in  our  system  of  representation? 

If  the  proposed  district  system  is  adopted,  it  will  remind 
us  of  the  Irishman  that  had  this  inscription  upon  his  tomb- 
stone: "  I  was  well  and  wanted  to  be  better.  I  took  physic, 
and  here  I  am."  The  legislative  branch  of  our  state  govern- 
ment consists  of  a  house  of  representatives  and  a  senate, 
and  the  latter  is  elected  upon  the  district  system.  Now  what 
good  reason  presents  itself  to  justify  this  Convention  in 
recommending  a  district  system  for  the  175  towns  that  don't 
want  it? 

Although  this  point  will  come  up  for  discussion  later  on, 
I  will  say  here  that  I  am  heartily  in  favor  of  the  resolution 
introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  which 
proposes  to  have  a  senate  of  fifty  members.  Should  this 
resolution  be  adopted  and  ratified,  together  with  the  propo- 
sition to  reduce  the  legislature  to  300  members,  we  should 
then  have  350  in  both  the  house  of  representatives  and  the 
senate,  and  we  should  have  fifty  senatorial  districts  in  the 
state.  In  that  way  we  would  get  a  representation  under  the 
district  system,  and  still  be  able  to  maintain  the  town  system. 
Those  who  want  representation  under  the  district  plan  can 
have  it  in  that  way,  and  those  who  want  to  maintain  the  town 
system  can  do  that.  That  is  what  would  seem  to  be  a  fair 
proposition.  It  seems  to  me  that  if  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire  believe  in  having  a  large  house,  as  I  think  they 
do,  they  should  have  a  senate  in  proportion,  and  there- 
fore I  believe  in  the  proposition  introduced  by  the  gentleman 
from  Bow. 

I  am  speaking  here  in  behalf  of  the  rural  towns  of  the 
state,  and  I  believe  them  to  have  much  at  stake  in  this  Con- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  343 

vention.  They  have  many  rights  which  we  are  in  duty 
hound  to  respect.  Whole  neighborhoods  have  heen  deserted 
in  our  rural  towns,  farm  homes  have  fallen  in  ruins,  churches 
that  once  summoned  the  people  to  worship  have  been  left 
to  decay,  school  districts  that  furnished  the  primary  educa- 
tion for  some  of  the  brightest  business  men  of  our  cities  are 
to-day  as  silent  as  the  grave.  In  my  opinion  a  new  light  is 
breaking  on  the  horizon.  The  grand  old  hills  of  New  Hamp- 
shire are  fast  becoming  popular.  Our  cities  are  growing  in 
wealth  and  in  population.  Our  rural  towns  are  fast  becom- 
ing summer  resorts,  and  our  hills  and  valleys,  our  lakes  and 
mountains  are  coming  to  be  summer  sanatoriums  for  the  city 
guests. 

Gentlemen,  in  our  cities,  in  Concord,  in  Manchester,  in 
Nashua,  in  Portsmouth,  are  those  sons  of  the  rural  towns. 
Many  of  them  are  here  to-day  upon  the  floor  of  this  Conven- 
tion, ready  to  champion  any  cause  that  will  encourage  and 
develop  the  small  country  towns,  wrhich  in  many  cas"es  hold 
the  dust  of  their  ancestors.  It  is  very  gratifying  to  us  dele- 
gates from  the  rural  towns  when  we  are  able  to  hear  such 
able  remarks  as  were  made  by  the  gentlemen  from  Nashua, 
and  the  gentleman  from  Somersworth,  and  the  other  gentle- 
men from  our  city  wards  that  have  come  here  in  this  Con- 
vention and  spoke  for  us.  They  are  friends  of  the  hill  towns 
in  the  state,  that  gave  many  of  them  birth  and  they  are 
worthy  of  our  most  distinguished  consideration  and  appre- 
ciation. 

I  am  very  sorry,  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  that  any- 
thing has  been  said  upon  this  floor  that  would  insinuate  in 
toward  any  one  who  lives  in  our  cities.  We  are  proud  of 
any  way  that  the  rural  delegates  have  any  animosity  whatever 
the  cities  of  New  Hampshire,  and  I  maintain  that  the  cities 
of  New  Hampshire  are  proud  of  the  rural  towns.  No  doubt 
we  have  members  in  this  Convention  that  were  not  born  in 
this  state,  or  in  this  country,  but  in  the  eyes  of  the  law  they 
have  been  made  American  citizens,  and  they  are  American 
citizens  with  us.  They  own  property  with  us,  they  pay  taxes 


344    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

with  us,  and  they  are  as  much  interested  in  the  prosperity  of 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire  as  am  I  or  any  other  man  born 
within  the  state. 

If  this  district  system  is  adopted,  it  means  the  bottling  up 
of  the  small  towns  with  the  large  towns  on  top.  The  large 
towns  and  wards  will  always  be  directly  represented,  while 
many  of  the  small  towns  will  lose  all  the  rights  of  repre- 
sentation that  they  have  now,  and  have  enjoyed  in  the  past. 
It  may  be  said,  and  has  been  said,  and  in  part  it  is  true,  that 
under  the  district  system  they  are  all  represented  all  the  time 
but  they  don't  have  such  a  direct  representation.  Towns 
do  not  have  men  of  their  own  to  send  to  the  legislature.  The 
small  towns  will  have  to  be  continually  represented  by  some 
one  out  of  their  limits,  and  that  is  something  that  the  small 
towns  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  do  not  want  at  this 
time. 

I  think  I  voice  the  sentiment  of  every  rural  town  when  I 
say,  give  us  a  representative  of  our  own  as  often  as  we  are 
entitled  to  it  and  no  more.  We  are  called  here  to  act  upon 
the  important  question  of  reducing  the  house  of  representa- 
tives, and  before  we  vote  upon  this  question  let  us  carefully 
consider  which  will  suffer  the  most,  the  cities  and  large 
towns  with  a  smaller  number  of  representatives,  or  the  small 
towns  without  any  representation.  That  is  the  question  for 
us  all  to  consider  fairly  and  candidly.  I  believe  we  should 
recognize  the  individual  independence  of  the  rural  towns  of 
the  state.  Let  them  stand  upon  their  merits.  Let  them  be 
recognized  as  independent  townships,  and  if  in  the  future  our 
people  see  fit  and  require  a  radical  change  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, a  revolution  of  the  representative  system  of  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire,  let  them  come  here  in  Convention  and  delib- 
erate upon  this  matter,  and  if  they  want  the  district  system, 
let  them  have  it;  but  I  maintain  now  that  the  time  is  not  ripe 
when  we  should  depart  from  this  time-honored  system  and 
go  into  the  district  system  which  so  many  of  the  small  towns 
of  the  state  do  not  want. 

Mr.  Harmon  of  Effingham — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  345 

of  the  Committee:  I  come  from  one  of  the  rural  towns  that 
has  all  to  lose  and  nothing  to  gain  by  the  district  system.  I 
have  heard  much  of  what  we  owe  to  the  little  republics 
throughout  this  state.  I  represent  one  of  those  little  repub- 
lics, and  it  is  needless  for  me  to  say  that  no  man  on  this  floor 
can  have  a  greater  feeling  of  pride  and  interest  in  my  little 
town  than  I  do.  Away  back  in  the  sixties  I  learned  a  lesson 
that  has  never  forsaken  me, — that  my  first  duty  belongs  to 
a  great  republic,  and  my  first  duty  after  that  belongs  to 
the  lesser  republic  of  my  state.  I  am  aware  that  I  rise  here 
to  advocate  a  measure  that  is  unpopular  with  my  dearest 
friends  and  those  of  the  rural  towns,  but  I  do  not  share  their 
prejudices  against  the  district  system,  perhaps  on  account  of 
having  the  privilege  of  residing  on  the  borders  of  Maine  and 
being  familiar  with  their  system,  and  having  attended  their 
caucuses,  where  I  must  say,  gentlemen,  that  there  is  quite  as 
much  harmony  and  quite  as  much  wisdom  shown  in  the  choice 
of  their  delegates  as  is  shown  in  the  choice  of  our  own. 

A  few  days  before  I  started  on  my  journey  to  this  city,  a 
gentleman  of  the  opposite  political  party  from  my  own,  who 
had  been  triumphant  in  his  town  in  the  recent  election,  advo- 
cated that  we  should  very  materially  decrease  the  house  of 
representatives,  his  own  opinion  being  that  we  should  start 
on  a  basis  of  1,200,  although  his  own  town  had  only  500 
population.  And  why  did  he  take  that  position?  In  order 
that  they  might  avoid  the  dissensions  in  the  towns  that  are 
so  demoralizing  in  their  effects. 

Xow,  gentlemen,  I  am  in  favor  of  the  district  system,  be- 
cause I  believe  it  is  honest  and  fair.  I  believe  it  is  equitable, 
and  I  believe  in  placing  it  upon  the  basis  of  the  voters,  for  one 
reason  because  it  was  one  of  the  provisions  that  was  recorded 
by  our  forefathers.  It  was  their  purpose,  as  has  already  been 
stated  here,  to  place  the  government  in  the  hands  of  the 
legal  voters,  and  I  believe  a  representative  government  should 
rest  upon  that  as  its  foundation  story. 

Now  perhaps  there  is  no  man  here  who  is  more  bound  by 
the  traditions  of  his  fathers  or  has  a  higher  veneration  for 


346    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  past  than  I  have.  My  love  of  it  has  filled  my  house  with 
the  relics  of  the  past  and  nearly  emptied  my  purse;  but  I  am 
not  so  far  in  favor  of  the  past  as  to  allow  any  article  in  any 
document,  sacred  or  secular,  to  stop  the  wheels  of  progress, 
and  I  "believe  that  is  what,  gentlemen,  the  retention  of  the 
town  system  will  do.  The  strenuous  advocates  of  the  town 
system  have  expressed  their  opinion  to  me  personally  that 
the  measure  I  advocate  is  the  proper  one  in  theory  and  wrould 
he  the  correct  one  in  practice  if  the  people  of  New  Hampshire 
were  prepared  to  have  it  and  would  ratify  it.  Were  we  chosen 
to  inquire  what  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  will  ratify,  or 
were  we  chosen  to  recommend  to  them  what  they  should 
ratify?  I  had  rather  be  defeated  badly  for  a  good  cause  than 
be  triumphant  in  a  bad  one. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  in  regard  to  the  legislation  for 
the  country  towns  and  against  the  cities,  and  for  the  cities 
and  against  the  country  towns.  Gentlemen,  no  such  legis- 
tion  can  take  place.  The  towns  can  never  enact  legislation 
that  will  give  them  permanent  benefit  that  will  in  any  way 
militate  against  the  cities  of  the  state,  nor  can  the  cities  gain 
any  benefit  by  any  legislation  that  will  in  any  way  be  against 
the  country  towns. 

The  gentleman  last  upon  the  floor  has  asked,  What  is  the 
meaning  of  reducing  the  house  of  representatives,  and  yet  he 
says  that  that  is  what  we  are  met  here  for,  or  that  that  is  the 
principal  reason.  There  is,  gentlemen,  a  general  clamoring 
all  over  this  state  for  the  reduction  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives, in  the  cause  of  economy  if  for  nothing  else.  There 
has  been  a  boast  that  we  have  never  carried  as  large  an 
amount  of  deposits  in  the  savings  banks  of  the  state  as  we 
do  to-day,  and  as  the  sayings  of  an  Irishman  have  been 
quoted,  I  think  I  may  be  pardoned  if  I  also  quote  from  an 
Irishman.  An  Irishman  came  from  the  old  country  to  this, 
and  he  prospered  well.  One  of  his  friends  came  to  visit  him, 
and  the  Irishman  pulled  out  from  his  pocket  a  showy  watch 
and  complacently  looked  at  it  to  tell  the  time.  His  visitor 
said,  "  Well,  Pat,  that  is  a  very  fine  watch  you  have.  How 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  347 

did  you  procure  it  in  this  short  time?'7  And  Pat  said>  "  Oh! 
that  is  easy.  Had  I  been  as  saving  as  I  could,  I  might  have 
had  a  town  clock  in  my  pocket."  Had  we  practised  the 
strictest  economy  concerning  the  affairs  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  we  would  undoubtedly  have  been  more  pros- 
perous than  we  are  to-day. 

A  gentleman  has  spoken  of  the  diminution  in  the  popu- 
lation of  our  towns.  Has  that  been  the  result  of  legislation, 
or  can  it  be  remedied  by  legislation?  If  we,  have  decreased 
in  population,  we  should  endeavor  to  economize  and  to  send 
the  very  best  men  we  have  here  to  legislate  for  us  and  not  go 
upon  the  principle  of  taking  turns  in  coming  to  the  legis- 
lature. 

And,  gentlemen,  there  is  one  thing  that  remains  for  us  to 
do,  and  that  is  to  fight  zealously  for  what  we  believe  to  be 
right.  I  have  known  in  my  day  many  a  preacher  and  a 
teacher  who  feared  to  be  radical  for  fear  his  congregation  or 
his  followers  might  not  accept  his  advanced  teachings;  but  I 
have  always  noticed  that  some  fine  day  that  fellow  awoke  to 
the  fact  that  his  congregation  or  his  followers  had  gone  be- 
yond him,  and  they  always  went  so  far  that  he  could  never 
overtake  them. 

Gentlemen,  if  we  adopt  a  measure  just  and  equitable,  such 
as  I  believe  this  district  system  to  be,  I  think  the  .people  of 
New  Hampshire  will  approve  of  it  and  will  approve  of  us. 
It  is  said  it  will  be  difficult  under  this  system  to  provide  an 
honest  and  fair  enumeration  for  the  purpose  of  a  division  into 
districts.  If  all  this  great  educational  system  of  the  legis- 
lature of  New  Hampshire,  which  has  been  so  much  talked 
about,  has  been  as  effective  as  it  is  claimed,  how  will  it  be 
impossible  or  difficult  for  us  to  divide  the  state  into  districts 
which  will  be  fair  and  just  to  all  concerned?  If  we  are  not 
able  to  do  that  after  our  legislative  experience  in  these  large 
legislative  schools,  I  think  we  better  do  away  with  them  as 
schools  for  all  time  and  enlarge  our  town  libraries  with  the 
surplus  money  that  we  would  save.  But  I  think,  gentlemen, 
that  we  can  find  men  who  will  be  learned  enough  and  fair 
enough  to  give  us  an  honest  and  square  enumeration. 


348    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

I  shall,  however,  in  my  earnestness  take  no  more  than  my 
proportion  of  the  time,  which  I  believe  to  be  mine,  and  I 
will  leave  this  subject  in  your  hands;  I  believe  from  the 
conservative  way  in  which  you  are  approaching  it  that  the 
right  will  surely  prevail. 

Mr.  Pike  of  Haverhill — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Committee:  I  have  the  honor  to  be  here  as  the  third 
delegate  from  one  of  the  larger  towns  of  the  state, — the  beau- 
tiful old  town  of  Haverhill.  I  have  been  absent  and  do  not 
know  what  my  colleagues  have  said  on  this  subject  of  reduc- 
ing the  representation  to  the  state  legislature,  but  I  do  know 
that  the  matter  has  been  thoroughly  threshed  over. 

I  hope  some  plan  will  be  brought  forward  at  this  Conven- 
tion so  a  large  reduction  may  be  made  in  the  number  of  rep- 
resentatives that  are  sent  to  our  legislature,  and  that  the  plan 
may  be  one  that  is  fair  and  just  and  satisfactory  to  the  whole 
state.  It  seems  to  me  that  the  town  system  is  best.  I  would 
like  to  see  every  town  have  a  representative.  I  do  not  know 
as  it  is  feasible,  but  I  know  that  it  must  be  more  satisfactory 
to  a  town  to  have  its  own  representative  all  the  time,  than  it 
is  to  be  without  one  part  of  the  time. 

There  is  one  plan  that  I  .have  thought  of, — I  do  not  know 
whether  it  is  practical  or  feasible,  but  I  am  going  to  suggest 
it,  and  that  is  this, — 

Why  not  give  to  every  town  a  representative  and  only  one, 
up  to  2,000  inhabitants,  and  then  an  increase  of  one  for  every 
2,000  inhabitants  in  the  town  or  ward. 

I  do  not  know  what  number  of  representatives  this  will 
give  us  and  I  only  make  it  as  a  suggestion. 

I  think  that  the  voters  of  Haverhill  will  be  satisfied  with  a 
town  system,  on  the  basis  of  600  for  the  first  representative, 
and  2,000  more  for  the  second,  and  so  on.  This  would  cut 
down  our  representation  one  third,  and  while  I  have  not  fig- 
ured it  out,  it  seems  to  me  that  this  reduction  in  our  repre- 
sentation from  Grafton  county  would  be  larger  in  proportion 
to  its  population  than  it  will  be  from  the  larger  cities.  I  do 
not  know  that  I  am  right  about  this. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  349 

The  town  of  Haverhill  would  be  just  as  well  off  if  the  basis 
of  representation  would  be  made  1,000  or  even  1,200,  and  the 
increase  for  another  representative  2,000,  because  we  have, 
I  believe,  over  3,500  population,  but  I  do  not  think  it  would 
be  fair  to  the  smaller  towns.  The  larger  towns  have  more  of 
a  floating  population  than  the  smaller  ones.  The  smaller 
towns  are  made  up  of  men  who  own  propert}^, — farmers,  who 
own  their  own  houses  and  farms  and  cattle,  and  who  pay 
taxes, — and  then  there  are  lawyers  and  doctors  and  school 
teachers.  Their  children  are  natives  of  New  Hampshire, 
and  I  believe  that  they  are  entitled  to  it,  and  that  they  are 
capable  of  intelligently  making  the  laws  of  the  state. 

The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  has  told  a  story 
here  that  has  made  quite  an  impression  upon  me,  and  I  can- 
not help  thinking  about  it.  I  have  not  made  any  inquiry  of 
the  gentleman  about  the  facts,  but  it  seems  to  me  that  the 
only  way  he  could  know  so  thoroughly  about  that  suit  of 
clothes  that  fitted  one  man  so  well,  and  wore  for  twenty  years, 
must  be  because  he  was  the  man,  and  in  that  way  he  gained 
his  knowledge  that  has  made  him  such  a  great  power  in  the 
politics  of  the  state. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — I  rise  but  a  few  moments  to  cor- 
rect what  seems  to  be  a  misapprehension  among  a  good  many 
of  the  members  of  this  Convention.  That  is,  that  we  can- 
not fix  an  absolute  number  for  the  house  of  representatives 
and  still  preserve  the  town  system.  Now  it  seems  to  me 
pretty  clear  that  if  an  arbitrary  number  should  be  fixed  for 
the  house  of  representatives  it  would  be  in  the  vicinity  of 
300  members,  and  it  is  perfectly  practical  to  frame  a  bill  that 
will  fix  the  house  at  that  number  and  yet  retain  the  town 
system.  The  secret  of  it  is  by  applying  the  surplus  popula- 
tion for  the  benefit  of  the  small  towns  and  at  the  same  time 
give  the  larger  towns  that  have  an  excess  the  privilege,  if 
the}r  choose,  of  uniting  together  and  getting  more  representa- 
tion than  they  would  be  entitled  to  simply  under  the  ratio 
which  may  be  fixed  if  they  stood  alone.  If  we  can  fix  the 
size  of  the  house  at  300  members  as  an  arbitrary  number, 


350    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  ratio,  as  would  appear  from  the  tabulations  submitted, 
would  be  about  one  representative  to  each  1,370  of  popula- 
tion. Now  upon  that  basis  distribute  the  representatives  to 
the  different  cities  and  towns  of  the  state  who  would  be  en- 
titled to  at  least  one  on  that  basis,  and  you  would  get  only 
165  representatives  to  come  from  such  towns.  That  would 
leave  135  representatives  for  the  remaining  towns  and  cities 
or  wards  of  the  state.  Now,  gentlemen,  there  are  110  towns 
that  have  a  population  between  600  and  1,370.  If  you  give 
a  representative  to  each  one  of  those  110  towns,  which  in- 
cludes every  town  that  is  now  entitled  to  send  a  representa- 
tive, you  would  have  twenty-five  representatives  left  for  the 
remaining  towns  which  are  now  classed,  and  which  could 
then  be  classed  the  same  as  they  are  now.  Under  a  system 
like  that,  providing  the  large  towns  and  wards  did  not  avail 
themselves  of  the  privilege  of  uniting  together  by  the  vote 
of  the  towns  and  wards,  or  by  agreement,  then  any  of  the 
small  towns  under  that  arrangement  would  have  a  repre- 
sentative as  it  has  to-day.  But,  assuming  that  the  large 
towns  and  cities  desired  to  avail  themselves  of  this  excess 
which  they  have,  of  course  it  would  reduce  the  number  of 
representatives  to  be  distributed  among  the  other  towns,  but 
every  town  of  600  population  would  have  representation  ac- 
cording to  its  size.  What  is  there  about  that  that  is  unfair? 
Even  if  that  be  so — let  the  worst  happen  that  could  happen- 
that  all  this  excess  was  taken  up,  then  how  are  your  small 
towns  provided  for?  Simply  they  have  a  representation  in 
proportion  to  the  population  that  they  have — the  proportion 
of  the  time  that  their  population  bears  to  1,370,  which  would 
give  a  town  of  600  a  representative  at  every  other  session 
practically.  Is  there  anything  unfair  or  unjust  about  that? 
There  is  another  thing  which  has  not  been  mentioned,  and 
that  is,  that  when  under  the  bill  framed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  you  take  the  reduction  from  the 
large  wards  and  towns  of  this  state  you  give  them  nothing 
in  return;  but  when  you  take  a  town  of  600  population  and 
deny  it  representation  a  part  of  the  time  only,  you  still  give 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  351 

it  all  the  representation  that  it  is  fairly  entitled  to,  practically 
half  of  the  time  in  any  event,  and  still  have  your  proportion 
as  it  is. 

So  my  point  is,  that  I  hope  no  member  of  this  Convention 
will  be  against  fixing  an  arbitrary  number  to  the  house  of 
representatives  because  they  think  if  they  do  so  there  must 
be  the  district  system.  It  is  not  at  all  necessary.  All  you 
have  to  do  is  to  allow  the  small  towns  to  elect  and  send  a 
representative  the  proportionate  part  of  the  time  they  are 
entitled  to  upon  the  basis  of  their  population. 

Another  method  could  be  adopted.  If  it  is  thought  best  to 
have  a  larger  number  for  the  second  representative  than  for 
the  first  in  proportion,  you  can  make  a  provision  that  when, 
under  the  basis  of  representation  as  it  now  exists,  the  house 
would  exceed  300  in  size,  the  representation  should  be  raised 
so  as  to  take  it  equally  from  the  small  and  the  large  towns 
and  cities. 

Now,  gentlemen,  to  my  mind,  if  you  are  going  to  do  any- 
thing in  the  line  of  fixing  an  arbitrary  number  for  the  first 
and  second  representatives,  it  should  be  simply  by  an  amend- 
ment which  would  provide  that  the  legislature  at  the  next 
session  should  raise  the  present  ratio  of  representation  of 
the  first  and  succeeding  representatives  to  such  a  number 
as  shall  throw  the  loss  equally  between  the  small  and  the 
large  towns  and  the  cities.  That  is  fair,  and  if  we  are  to  do 
anything  here  that  the  people  will  approve  we  must  do  some- 
thing that  is  fair  and  just. 

The  main  objection  which  is  urged  to  the  bill  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  is  that  it  is  unjust 
and  unequal,  and  you  will  notice  that  it  is.  It  is  a  matter 
of  considerable  moment,  and  will  be  in  the  next  ten  years  a 
matter  of  considerable  moment.  I  know  that  one  question, 
the  matter  of  intoxicating  liquor,  is  to  come  before  the  peo- 
ple, and  it  is  likely  to  remain  there  for  a  long  time  before 
it  is  finally  settled.  Even  if  local  option  is  granted  that  will 
not  finally  dispose  of  the  question,  but  another  question  will 
be  before  the  people  which  will  be  one  between  the  large 


352    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

and  the  small  communities.  If  you  have  local  option,  prob- 
ably the  city  of  Manchester  would  vote  for  license  and  raise 
some  sixty  thousand  dollars  from  the  license  fees.  Is  it  fair 
to  decide  in  the  legislature  how  that  shall  be  divided,  and  to 
have  a  little  town  of  600  or  300  inhabitants  have  three  or  four 
times  the  woight  of  determining  that  question  over  the  same 
population  of  the  larger  towns  and  the  cities?  I  think  not, 
and  there  is  the  trouble  with  the  bill  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Newport.  If  you  adopt  that  measure  here,  I  do 
not  believe  the  people  of  the  larger  towns  and  of  the  cities 
will  ratify  the  proposition  that  the  small  towns  shall  have  so 
much  more  weight  than  the  larger  ones  in  proportion  to  the 
population,  that  the  large  towns  will  have  only  one  third  or 
one  half  the  weight  of  the  small  towns  in  the  state  in  deter- 
mining the  matters  in  which  they  are  all  interested. 

Now  there  has  been  a  good  deal  said  here  about  the  neces- 
sity of  the  small  towns  being  represented  in  order  to  look 
after  the  interests  of  the  small  towns.  I  have  taken  pains 
to  look  over  the  session  laws  and  I  have  failed  to  find  in  the 
last  sessions  of  the  legislature  a  single  act  passed  by  the  legis- 
lature in  which  any  of  the  small  towns  had  any  different  in- 
terests from  the  neighboring  towns,  but  there  were  many 
laws  enacted  in  which  all  the  large  towns  and  the  cities  were 
very  decidedly  interested  while  the  small  towns  were  not. 

I  say,  gentlemen,  that  we  can  preserve  the  town  system 
perfectly  and  at  the  same  time  fix  an  arbitrary  number  for 
the  house  of  representatives.  If  you  fix  an  arbitrary  num- 
ber for  the  size  of  the  house  you  have  it  fixed  for  all  time.  I 
think  we  make  a  mistake  and  do  injustice  to  ourselves  if  we 
leave  this  matter  in  a  way  that  shall  not  fix  it  for  all  time. 
If  you  decide  upon  an  arbitrary  number  that  the  house  shall 
consist  of,  we  can  preserve  your  town  system  as  well  as  the 
district  system,  and  have  a  representation  that  will  be  per- 
fectly fair. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester — Gentlemen  of  the  Committee: 
When  I  came  to  this  Convention  I  came  with  notions  which 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  353 

were  hard  to  change.  I  have  been  somewhat  of  a  student 
of  history  and  of  politics,  and  especially  of  American  history 
and  politics,  and  I  have  an  admiration  equal  to  that  of  any 
member  on  this  floor  for  the  little  republics,  which,  as  de 
Tocqueville  says,  were  the  germ  of  the  greater  federal  repub- 
lic. All  my  studies  had  led  me  to  the  belief  that  the  other 
states  of  this  Union  which  had  abandoned  the  town  meeting 
system  of  New  England  had  made  mistakes.  Believing  that, 
I  came  here  with  the  idea  that  if  possible  the  town  system 
should  be  preserved  for  the  purpose  of  electing  representa- 
tives, in  any  adjustment  which  might  be  made.  But  I  have 
listened  to  the  arguments  which  have  been  given  here;  I 
have  considered  the  matter  very  carefully  myself;  I  have  read 
a  great  many  times  article  nine  of  part  two  of  this  Constitu- 
tion, which  says  that  all  representation  shall  be  founded  on 
principles  of  equality.  I  find  that  in  the  very  Constitution, 
and  in  the  very  article  you  are  considering,  is  stated  the 
basis — that  it  shall  be  equality — and  I  must  confess  that  I 
have  not  heard  from  the  lips  of  any  gentleman  in  favor  of  the 
town  system  any  argument  which  satisfies  me  that  it  is  pos- 
sible to  preserve  the  principle  of  equality  by  a  preservation 
of  the  town  system.  At  the  beginning  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  in  the  first  tentative  Constitution  which  our  peo- 
ple adopted  after  they  had  thrown  off  their  allegiance  to  the 
British  crown,  150  voters  were  made  the  basis  for  the  first 
representative  and  150  voters  were  the  basis  for  the  second 
representative,  and  so  on;  and  it  was  not  until  1783  that  the 
provision  was  put  into  the  Constitution  which  gave  one  first 
representative  for  150  ratable  polls,  and  then  required  300 
ratable  polls  for  the  second  representative.  That  was  done, 
although  the  language  of  article  nine  was  kept  there — the 
statement  which  said  that  representation  should  be  founded 
on  principles  of  equality.  Then  and  there  our  fathers  parted 
from  the  principles  of  equality  when  they  said  the  second  rep- 
resentative should  have  a  constituency  twice  as  large  as  the 
first  representative.  That  was  continued  down  to  1876,  and 
then  by  changing  from  ratable  polls  to  population  as  a  basis,  a 
23 


354    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

population  of  600  was  made  necessary  for  the  first  representa- 
tive and  1,200  for  the  second,  and  that  is  the  basis  under 
which  we  are  now  living.  Is  that  fair?  Is  that  equitable? 
Is  there  any  reason  why  the  second  1,200  people  in  a  town 
or  in  a  ward  should  have  only  one  representative  while  the 
first  600  who  happened  to  be  counted  are  entitled  to  have 
one,  or  why  600  people  in  one  town  should  have  the  same 
right  of  representation  as  1,799  in  some  other  town? 

Gentlemen,  adopt  a  system  which  fixes  the  number  of  the 
legislature,  and  then  provide  that  that  number  shall  be  divided 
among  the  towns  and  wards  in  proportion  to  their  popula- 
tion, and  come  back  to  what  the  fathers  say  is  desirable — 
equality  of  representation.  I  see  no  way  in  which  that  can 
be  accomplished  except  by  the  district  system,  and  for  that 
reason,  although  I  came  here  with  my  prejudices  in  favor  of 
the  town  system,  I  shall  be  constrained  to  vote  in  favor  of  the 
district  system. 

But  it  may  be  that  the  wisdom  of  this  Convention  will  de- 
cide that  the  district  system  shall  be  submitted  to  the  peo- 
ple. For  myself  I  should  like — and  I  see  no  harm  in  this 
proposition — to  give  to  the  people  the  opportunity  to  decide 
whether  they  will  have  a  district  system  or  keep  the  town 
system.  There  is  no  difficulty  in  submitting  the  two  propo- 
sitions to  the  people.  We  could  fix  a  certain  number  of 
representatives  to  constitute  the  house,  and  then  design  a 
proper  district  system  and  ask  the  people  if  they  are  in  favor 
of  that,  and  at  the  same  time  have  another  proposition  re- 
ducing the  house  to  the  proper  basis  upon  the  town  system, 
and  ask  the  people  if  they  desire  to  have  that  system  instead 
of  the  district  system.  Is  not  that  a  fair  and  the  proper 
thing  for  us  to  do — to  submit  to  the  voters  of  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  whether  they  want  the  district  system  or 
the  town  system,  and  leave  it  to  them  to  make  their  choice? 
If  we  do  that,  the  choice  will  be  made  advisedly,  and  all  will 
have  to  be  satisfied  with  the  decision  thus  made. 

But  if  the  sense  of  the  Convention  is  such  that  no  chance 
is  to  be  given  to  the  people  to  vote  whether  they  want  the 
district  system  or  not,  then  we  come  to  the  other  propositions. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  355 

Something  has  been  said  here  about  compromise.  Some- 
thing has  been  suggested  that  we  must  all  yield  a  little  some- 
thing, and  then  get  together  upon  a  basis  which  seems  fair. 
But  what  proposition  is  there,  Mr.  Chairman,  now  before  this 
committee,  offered  by  any  member  who  desires  to  preserve 
the  town  system,  that  really  compromises  on  their  part?  Is 
not  their  one  attempt — is  not  their  one  idea  to  leave  the 
small  towns  as  they  are,  and  to  make  this  reduction  from  the 
large  towns  and  the  cities?  Why,  gentlemen,  if  I  had  been 
engaged  in  a  fight  with  my  friend  from  Lancaster,  and  he 
had  me  down  and  was  holding  me  by  the  throat  and  punching 
me  once  in  a  while  in  my  face,  and  saying  to  me,  "  Mr.  Jones, 
I  would  like  to  compromise  with  you/'  do  you  think  it  would 
be  much  of  a  compromise  if  he  made  the  basis  of  the  com- 
promise that  he  would  punch  me  twice  as  much  and  twice 
as  hard  as  he  was  doing  then?  I  think  the  people  of  the 
large  towns  and  the  cities  are  being  punched  a  third  more 
than  they  ought  to  be  to-day,  because  under  the  basis  now 
existing  it  takes  600  population  for  the  first  representative 
and  1,200  more  for  the  second  representative,  and  the  ratio 
is  against  us  all  the  time.  Now,  these  gentlemen  come  here 
and  ask  us  to  compromise  with  them  by  adopting  a  measure 
which  will  preserve  600  as  the  basis  for  the  first  representa- 
tive, and  make  it  2,000  or  3,000  for  the  second.  It  seems 
to  me  that  is  punching  harder  than  you  have  done  before  and 
is  not  much  of  a  compromise  after  all. 

I  am  one  of  those  who  believe  that  this  Convention  should 
act  according  to  its  own  wisdom  and  judgment,  and  that  we 
should  satisfy  our  own  wishes  and  intelligence,  and  should  in- 
sist upon  such  satisfaction  with  anything  we  submit  to  the 
people.  We  should  not  have  continually  held  up  to  us 
threats  or  fears  that  what  we  may  do  here  will  not  receive 
the  ratification  of  the  people.  One  thing  is  certain,  if  we  do 
not  satisfy  ourselves,  if  we  do  something  here  with  which  we 
are  not  ourselves  satisfied,  the  people  will  not  ratify  it,  be- 
cause there  will  be  nobody  to  go  from  here  before  the  people 
and  ask  ratification. 


356    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

"We  have  been  told  that  anything  which  increases  the  num- 
ber required  for  the  first  representative  will  not  receive  the 
sanction  of  the  small  towns  of  the  state.  Now  I  wish  to  say, 
not  in  the  way  of  threats,  but  simply  to  state  my  belief,  that 
any  proposition  which  makes  a  reduction  of  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives entirely  at  the  expense  of  the  large  towns  and 
of  the  cities  of  the  state,  solely  at  the  expense  of  those  repre- 
sentative districts  which  have  more  than  one  representative, 
will  not  receive  two  thirds  of  the  vote  of  the  people  of  the 
state,  because  the  larger  towns  and  the  cities  of  the  state  cast 
much  more  than  a  third  of  the  vote  of  the  state  and  it  takes 
two  thirds  to  adopt  any  amendment.  The  cities  of  the  state 
will,  if  I  am  not  mistaken,  cast  about  forty  per  cent,  of  the 
total  vote  of  the  state.  Some  gentlemen  may  think  that  there 
is  no  interest  in  this  matter  in  the  cities.  I  venture  to  say 
that  when  such  a  proposition  is  put  before  the  voters  of  the 
cities  as  that  called  for  by  the  amendments  proposed  by  the 
gentleman  from  Peterborough,  Mr.  Scott,  or  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  you  will  find  they  will  have 
interest  enough  to  stand  up  for  what  they  believe  to  be  their 
rights.  There  is  as  much  danger  that  a  proposition  like  that 
will  fail  as  there  is  danger  that  a  proposition  which  might  be 
a  little  more  just  to  the  cities  would  fail. 

As  I  have  mentioned  before,  there  is  no  compromise  and 
can  be  none  on  the  basis  of  600  and  2,000.  It  would  not  be 
a  compromise,  but  it  would  be  punching  us  harder.  I  think 
that  the  cities  and  larger  towns  have  got  used  to  the  600  and 
1,200,  and  if  the  Convention  sees  fit  to  deny  the  people  a 
chance  to  vote  upon  the  district  system,  then  I  would  sug- 
gest this — any  basis  that  will  reduce  the  house  of  representa- 
tives and  will  keep  the  existing  inequality,  without  increasing 
it.  I  care  not  whether  you  make  it  700  and  1,400,  800  and 
1,600,  900  and  1,800,  or  1,000  and  2,000,  but  keep  the  exist- 
ing inequality  and  the  people  of  the  larger  towns  and  of  the 
cities  will  probably  ratify  it.  But  when  you  come  and  ask 
us  to  compromise  by  making  it  600  for  the  first  representa- 
tive and  2,000  for  the  second,  thus  increasing  the  inequality 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  357 

that  already  exists,  I  ask  where  is,  and  where  can  there  be, 
the  compromise  on  that  basis. 

I  believe  if  we  are  to  cling  to  the  town  system,  then  any 
basis  that  will  reduce  the  house  of  representatives  will  very 
likely  increase  the  number  of  pro-rated  towns.  But  they  tell 
us  from  the  country  towns  that  they  prefer  to  be  represented 
a  part  of  the  time  rather  than  to  go  into  a  district  where  they 
would  have  equal  representation  all  the  time.  If  they  see  fit 
to  take  that  stand  they  are  the  ones  to  be  affected  by  it,  and 
I  cannot  see  how  the  representatives  of  the  larger  towns  and 
the  cities  can  find  any  fault  with  them.  So,  then,  if  it  is  de- 
sirable to  reduce  the  house, — and  everybody  thinks  it  is  de- 
sirable to  reduce  the  house  to  some  extent,— let  us  reduce  it 
upon  some  basis  which  will  not  be  more  unfair  than  the 
present  system. 

On  the  basis  of  800  and  1,600  we  will  have  a  house  of  about 
320,  which  is  some  eighty  smaller  than  the  present  house  of 
representatives,  or  than  it  will  be  under  the  next  census. 
But  that  is  not  very  much  of  a  reduction,  and  the  object  of 
this  Convention,  as  I  understand,  is,  or  should  be,  to  reduce 
the  house  so  as  to  make  it  a  more  easily  working  body  than 
the  present  house.  Unless  you  bring  it  down  100  or  150,  so 
it  would  be  a  compact  body,  fitted  to  do  business  more  easily 
than  a  larger  house;  unless  you  make  a  radical  reduction, 
what  is  the  use  of  making  any  great  talk  of  a  change  or  of 
any  reduction?  I  will  say  that  I  believe  the  inhabitants  of 
the  large  towns  and  of  the  cities  of  this  state  would  much  pre- 
fer to  see  the  present  condition  of  things  exist  than  to  see  an 
amendment  adopted  which  would  preserve  600  for  the  first 
representative  and  make  2,000  additional  necessary  for  the 
second.  We  feel  the  same  about  that  as  some  of  the  dele- 
gates from  the  smaller  towns  say  they  feel  about  the  district 
system.  We  want  it  as  fair  as  possible.  And  why  is  it  not 
honest  and  just  to  every  small  town,  if  we  are  going  to  re- 
duce the  house  no  more  than  to  about  300,  to  adopt  a  basis 
which  would  give  us  in  the  cities  and  the  larger  towns  the  same 
proportion  of  representation  which  we  now  have  and  which 


358     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

you  can  all  plainly  see,  if  you  will  lay  aside  your  prejudices, 
is  not  as  fair  as  it  should  be.  I  submit  that  is  the  proposition 
to  be  carefully  and  candidly  considered  by  this  Convention. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — It  is  very  evident,  as  the  time  of 
12  o'clock  approaches,  that  the  members  who  desire  to  be 
heard  cannot  be  heard  upon  this  question  if  we  take  a  vote 
at  that  time.  I  believe  it  is  fair  that  everybody  who  desires 
to  talk  should  be  heard,  and  I  move  that  the  committee  do 
now  arise  for  the  purpose  of  enabling  the  Convention  to  ex- 
tend the  time  at  which  the  vote  upon  the  order  submitted 
by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  is  to  be 
taken. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Personally  I  have  no  objection 
to  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Ly- 
ford. The  Convention  can  change  the  time  of  voting  if  it 
sees  fit.  The  only  point  I  wish  to  make  is  that  every  mem- 
ber of  the  Convention  has  had  notice  that  the  vote  was  to  be 
taken  at  12  o'clock,  and  I  know  that  some  of  the  members  of 
the  Convention  have  made  arrangements  to  be  here  at  12 
o'clock  to-day  who  cannot  be  here  at  4  or  5  or  6  this  after- 
noon. Whether  or  not  they  ought  to  be  compelled,  and  the 
Convention  ought  to  be  compelled,  to  lose  their  votes,  is  a 
matter  about  which  I  have  some  doubt.  As  far  as  I  am  con- 
cerned, I  have  no  feeling  on  the  subject. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter — It  seems  to  me  in  view  of  what  the 
gentleman  from  Concord  has  said,  it  is  extremely  possible 
that  all  those  who  are  proposing  to  vote  on  this  question  will 
be  here  to-day,  and  probably  will  be  here  whenever  a  vote  is 
taken,  and  the  only  injustice  that  is  done  to  such  members 
of  the  Convention  is  in  making  them  come  a  second  time. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — I  wish  merely  to  make  the  sug- 
gestion that  the  object  of  Mr.  Lyford  might  perhaps  be  ac- 
complished by  limiting  the  time  of  the  speakers  instead  of 
extending  the  time  for  taking  the  vote. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  359 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — Is  there  any  objection  that  the 
time  of  taking  this  vote  be  set  for  to-morrow,  which  is  Thurs- 
day, at  12  o'clock?  We  need  not  occupy  all  the  time  in 
speaking,  as,  after  the  arguments  and  remarks  have  been 
closed,  we  can  go  on  with  other  business. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — I  am  one  of  the  unfortu- 
nates that  Senator  Chandler  has  spoken  about.  I  went  home 
from  this  Convention  last  week,  understanding  we  would  vote 
to-day,  and  I  made  all  my  arrangements  and  cancelled  my 
business  engagements  to  be  here  to-day.  I  came  to  this  Con- 
vention to  vote  upon  this  one  question,  and  I  would  be  sorry 
to  lose  the  opportunity  of  voting  upon  it. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — Let  me  explain  to  the  gentleman 
that  the  vote  in  this  committee  settles  nothing,  that  the  final 
vote  must  be  taken  in  Convention,  and  therefore  the  gentle- 
man is  not  deprived  of  any  privilege  by  our  extending  this 
time. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — "We  came  here,  it  seems  to 
me,  to  do  business  for  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  We  have 
been  here  on  one  question  for  two  weeks.  Every  other  Con- 
vention has  settled  questions  as  momentous  as  this  in  two 
weeks'  time,  and  it  seems  to  me,  after  talking  two  weeks  we 
ought  to  be  ready  to  vote.  I  do  not  believe  that  it  will  make 
a  change  of  one  vote  to  have  any  further  talk  in  regard  to 
this  matter.  I  do  object  to  extending  the  time  for  taking 
the  vote  later  than  12  or  1  o'clock. 

Mr.  Chamberlain  of  New  Durham — I  agree  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Londonderry.  We  are  here  to  serve  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire,  and  we  ought  to  cancel  all  of  our  engage- 
ments outside  of  our  official  duties  and  attend  to  the  duties 
of  this  Convention,  no  matter  if  we  have  talked  two  weeks. 
I  am  getting  a  lot  of  information  here,  and  I  think  there  is 
a  chance  to  learn  a  little  more  before  this  debate  closes.  We 
may  all  want  a  chance  to  say  something  and  want  to  hear 


360    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

from  others  who  have  anything  to  say  about  this  question, 
and  here  is  the  place  to  discuss  it  and  to  dispose  of  it.  I  sin- 
cerely hope  we  will  have  all  the  time  necessary  to  have  a  free, 
fair  and  thorough  discussion  of  this  question. 

Mr.  Pillshury  of  Londonderry — I  would  say  to  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord  as  he  said  to  me,  that  this  is  not  the  final 
vote  on  this  question,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  everybody  will 
get  the  right  to  talk  when  it  comes  back  before  this  Conven- 
tion, and  it  is  as  fair  to  have  the  discussion  then  as  it  is  to 
extend  the  time  for  voting  now. 

Mr.  Daley  of  Berlin — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I 
came  here  from  Berlin,  in  the  Androscoggin  valley,  a  little 
city  containing  about  10,000  inhabitants.  I  am  not  informed, 
nor  do  I  believe  that  anybody  in  that  city,  or  from  that 
valley,  has  yet  had  a  proper  opportunity  to  be  heard  upon 
the  question  now  before  the  committee,  and  for  this  reason 
I  favor  the  postponement  as  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  and  hope  his  motion  will  prevail. 

The  Chairman — The  question  is  upon  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  that  the  committee 
do  now  arise  and  ask  to  have  the  time  extended  on  which  to 
vote  upon  the  order  presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Chandler. 

Motion  prevails. 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Little  of  Manchester — Mr.  President,  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  has  been  in  session  and  has  had  under  consid- 
eration the  various  proposed  amendments  referring  to  the 
reduction  of  our  representation  in  the  house  of  representa- 
tives, and  has  voted  to  rise  and  ask  the  Convention  to  extend 
the  time  for  voting  upon  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gen- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  361 

tleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  in  regard  to  the  differ- 
ent systems  of  representation,  etc. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  move  you,  sir,  that  the  time  fojr 
taking  the  vote  in  committee  on  the  order  submitted  by  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  be  fixed  at  12 
o'clock  to-morrow.  If  the  Convention  desires,  I  will  add  to 
that  that  debate  close  at  3  o'clock  to-day. 

The  President — The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Ly- 
ford, moves  that  the  time  for  taking  the  vote  upon  the  order 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  which 
was  adopted,  be  extended  from  12  o'clock  to-day  until  12 
o'clock  to-morrow.  Is  the  Convention  ready  for  the  ques- 
tion? 

Mr.  Shute  of  Wentworth — It  is  clearly  evident  that  the 
time  will  be  fully  occupied  by  speakers  until  the  hour  men- 
tioned, and  if  it  should  not  be  so,  and  there  might  be  a  space 
of  time  not  taken  up  by  this  discussion,  we  can  go  on  some 
other  matter  which  is  before  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Concord  to  accept  an  amendment  which  I  propose  to  offer, 
namely,  that  on  the  morrow  the  speeches  upon  this  subject 
be  limited  to  five  minutes. 

Mr.  Briggs  of  Manchester — Mr.  President,  I  do  not  believe 
in  cutting  anybody  off  in  this  matter.  The  members  of  this 
Convention  have  the  right  to  talk  upon  this  question  to  their 
hearts'  content. 

Mr.  Lyford's  motion  was  stated  by  the  President  and  pre- 
vailed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  all  of 
the  pending  resolutions  upon  the  question  of  representation. 


362    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Little  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

The  Chairman — Gentlemen,  we  are  again  in  session  as  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  for  the  consideration  of  the  ques- 
tions relating  to  representation  in  the  house  of  representa- 
tives. The  chair  will  recognize  the  gentleman  from  Lancas- 
ter, Mr.  Drew. 

Mr.  Drew  of  Lancaster — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Committee:  Unfortunately  for  me  I  was  not  able  to  be 
here  last  week  and  so  I  have  lost  the  benefit  of  a  large  part  of 
the  discussion  upon  this  very  important  question.  I  had 
supposed,  until  I  came  here  yesterday  morning  and  heard 
some  of  the  discussion  that  has  occurred  since,  that  there  was 
in  New  Hampshire  a  strong  demand  on  the  part  of  the  people 
that  the  representation  in  the  house  of  representatives 
should  be  reduced.  I  must  say  that  I  was  very  much  sur- 
prised when  I  heard  gentlemen  whom  I  believe  to  be  better 
informed  than  I  am,  say  that  they  were  not  aware  that  there 
was  an  urgent  demand  in  the  state  for  a  reduction  in  the 
number  of  representatives  in  the  lower  house  of  the  legisla- 
ture. I  understand,  and  have  understood  for  several  years, 
that  the  people  of  the  state  recognize  the  fact  that  our  repre- 
sentation in  the  house  is  too  large,  and  that  some  means 
should  be  devised,  if  possible,  whereby  it  may  be  reduced 
and  thus  made  less  unwieldy,  and  at  the  same  time  save  to  the 
state  a  very  large  expense.  I  think  I  have  heard  it  suggested 
by  many  of  the  citizens  of  New  Hampshire  that  unless  the 
house  of  representatives  shall  be  considerably  reduced  in  num- 
ber, the  proposition  immediately  before  us  will  be  to  raise  suf- 
ficient money,— a  million  dollars  or  more, — to  build  a  new 
capitol  building.  The  question  of  enlarging  this  state  house 
has  been  considered  by  several  legislatures  and  it  has  always 
been  decided,  as  I  understand  it,  that  it  would  not  be  feasible 
to  enlarge  this  house,  and  that  if  we  were  compelled  to  have 
more  room  we  should  be  obliged  to  build  a  new  state  house. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  363 

I  have  also  understood  that  the  matter  of  expense  was  a 
serious  question  in  the  minds  of  the  people,  not  of  the  cities 
alone,  but  in  the  minds  of  the  people  of  the  country  where  I 
come  from.  If  that  is  not  true,  then  I  have  entirely  misun- 
derstood the  attitude  of  the  people  of  the  state  upon  this  ques- 
tion. I  suppose  we  were  selected  to  come  here  because  the 
people  in  our  towns  and  wards  believed  that  we  would,  after 
due  deliberation,  report  to  them  for  their  action  such  things 
as  we  believe  to  be  conducive  to  the  general  public  good.  I 
suppose  this  to  be  the  fundamental  consideration  which 
should  control  us  in  our  conduct  here.  I  apprehend  that 
every  consideration  of  personal  interest  should  be  eliminated 
from  our  deliberations.  I  understand,  even,  that  we  should 
not  allow  what  we  regard  as  a  local  interest  to  control  or  qual- 
ify our  actions  as  against  the  public  good.  This  is  the  funda- 
mental principle  upon  which  free  government  is  established. 
Men  cannot  associate  themselves  together  in  governmental 
form  and  preserve  and  maintain  a  practical  government  by 
making  the  general  policy  subservient  to  individual  or  local 
preferences.  The  very  idea  of  self-government  is,  that  there 
shall  be  a  yielding  of  individual  and  local  interests  to  the 
great  commanding  interests  of  the  public. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen,  I  believe  that  is  what  we  are 
here  for,  and  I  believe  as  firmly  that  there  is  no  member  of 
this  committee  who  does  not  propose  to  do  that  thing  which 
he  believes  is  for  the  general  public  good.  What,  then,  must 
we  do?  We  must  lift  ourselves  into  the  atmosphere  of  per- 
sonal self-sacrifice.  We  must  lift  ourselves  into  the  atmos- 
phere of  local  self-sacrifice,  and  we  must  consider,  and  con- 
sider alone,  those  things  which  we  believe  will  contribute  most 
to  the  general  public  welfare. 

I  was  born  and  reared  in  a  country  town,  and  have  lived  in 
a  country  town  all  my  life.  I  know,  or  at  least  I  think  I 
know,  something  of  the  estimate  in  which  the  people  hold 
their  rights, — how  tenaciously  they  cling  to  and  how  reluc- 
tantly they  surrender  them.  I  admire  that  spirit,  and  I  hope 
I  have  something  of  it  myself,  and  I  do  believe  if  there  is  any 


364      JOURNAL   OF    CONSTITUTIONAL   CONVENTION. 

sense  of  justice  anywhere  that  is  pure  and  noble  and  strong,  it 
is  in  the  people  who  live  in  these  country  towns;  and  I  believe 
when  a  proposition,  at  any  time,  that  effects  the  public  good 
is  presented  to  them  so  that  they  understand  it,  that  they  will 
yield  individual  and  local  interests  for  the  general  public  wel- 
fare as  quickly  as  people  that  live  in  any  other  section  of  the 
state.  I  believe,  too,  that  the  people  who  live  in  our  larger 
towns  and  cities  are  controlled  by  this  same  spirit.  I  believe 
this  is  the  spirit  that  controls  all  the  people  in  the  state, 
but  we  do  not  at  all  times  hold  ourselves  so  free  from  local 
and  individual  interests  that  we  can  see  things  in  their  true 
light,  and  to  do  so  requires  consideration,  time,  and  personal 
effort.  In  order  to  bring  ourselves  to  see  these  things  in  their 
true  light  we  have  got  to  exercise  charity;  we  have  got  to 
recognize  that  every  individual  has  the  same  personal  right  of 
opinion  that  we  have;  we  have  got  to  recognize  that  every  one 
of  our  neighbors  is  just  as  sincere  and  honest  in  his  views  as 
we  are,  and  when  we  come  together  recognizing  these  facts  we 
shall  all  meet  on  a  plane  of  compromise  and  shall  be  con- 
trolled by  the  single  purpose  to  do  that  which  will  contribute 
most  to  the  general  good. 

I  assume,  for  the  purpose  of  this  discussion,  that  there  is  a 
necessity  for  the  reduction  of  membership  of  our  house  of 
representatives.  Now  the  practical  question  is,  How  shall  the 
reduction  be  secured?  Naturally  the  first  question  is,  Where 
shall  the  number  be  fixed ?  Is  300  the  right  number?  If  not, 
is  290,  250,  or  200  the  right  number?  When  the  number  is 
determined  all  that  remains  is  purely  a  matter  of  detail,  and 
in  my  judgment,  that  matter  of  detail  should  be  worked  out 
on  one  principle,  and  one  principle  alone. 

That  principle,  gentlemen,  is  the  principle  that  underlies 
all  democratic  republican  government.  That  is,  full  and 
continuous  representation  of  everybody  within  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  state.  A  democratic  republican  government  does 
not  rest  upon  the  idea  of  partial  representation;  it  rests  upon 
the  idea  and  principle  of  universal  representation,  the  full 
representation  of  every  individual  and  personal  interest  in  the 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  365 

commonwealth.  It  always  lias  rested,  and  always  will,  and 
always  must  rest  upon  that,  because  when  we  begin  to  depart 
from  that  idea  we  begin  to  disregard  the  natural  rights  which 
our  Bill  of  Eights  declares  to  inhere  in  every  individual. 
Now,  then,  the  system  which  will  give  representation  to  every 
interest  in  New  Hampshire  and  every  individual  in  New 
Hampshire,  is  the  system  which  stands  upon  a  principle  which 
cannot  be  gainsaid. 

First,  fix  the  number  of  representatives  that  will  be  satis- 
factory, and  then  devise  a  method  by  which  we  can  elect  that 
number  of  representatives  and  have  every  individual  in  New 
Hampshire  and  every  property  interest  in  New  Hampshire 
represented  all  the  time.  This  is  the  ideal,  and  it  is  the  only 
true  basis  of  representation.  We  have  not  had  it  for  many 
years.  We  have  drifted  away  from  it.  The  basis  upon  which 
our  representation  was  first  established  was  a  classification  of 
small  towns.  This  classification  became  unfitted  for  the  con- 
ditions which  arose,  and  hence  it  was  changed,  and  finally 
classification  of  small  towns  was  abandoned  and  pro-rata  rep- 
resentation was  adopted.  Under  our  present  constitution  we 
have  sixty-eight  towns  which  do  not  elect  representatives  to 
every  legislature.  Under  this  system  the  people  residing  in 
these  towns  are  entirely  unrepresented  and  have  no  voice  in 
the  legislation  enacted  by  the  legislatures  in  which  they  have 
no  representatives.  This  is  a  rank  violation  of  the  essential 
underlying  principle  of  free  government, — government  by 
the  people.  I  do  not  believe  in  this  method.  I  believe,  as  I 
have  stated,  in  a  method  that  gives  full  representation  all  the 
time,  but  I  recognize  the  fact  that  we  cannot  always  have  the 
ideal,  but  if  we  are  obliged  to  depart  from  the  ideal,  we  should 
depart  from  it  as  little  as  possible.  We  should  keep  as  closely 
to  it  as  environment  and  existing  conditions  will  allow. 

In  my  judgment,  there  are  two  ways,  and  two  ways  onty,  in 
which  we  can  have  representation  which  will  exemplify  fully 
the  true  underlying  principle  of  free  government.  First,  the 
town  system  under  which  would  be  given  to  every  town,  how- 
ever small,  one  representative,  and  to  every  ward  in  every  city 


366    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

a  representative;  but  I  am  satisfied,  as  a  practical  measure, 
that  such,  a  system  cannot  be  adopted.  The  cities  and  larger 
towns  probably  would  not  consent  to  it,,  and  I  don't  know  that 
it  is  wise  that  they  should  do  so. 

The  personal  interest  of  the  individual  in  the  city  and  indi- 
vidual in  the  country  is  substantially  the  same,  and  with  a 
representation  from  each  town  and  from  each  ward  of  the  sev- 
eral cities,  the  towns  and  the  cities  would  have  full  representa- 
tion and  the  interests  of  the  towns  and  of  the  cities  would  be 
protected.  It  may  be  claimed  that  the  property  interests  are 
such  in  the  large  cities  that  they  ought  to  have  a  larger  repre- 
sentation; that  a  ward  of  6,000  people  and  ten  million  dollars 
worth  of  property  should  have  a  larger  representation  than  a 
town  with  100  population  and  two  hundred  thousand  dollars 
worth  of  appraised  property.  We  from  the  country  recognize 
that  there  is  some  force  in  this  suggestion,  and  that  a  system 
of  one  member  from  every  town  and  one  member  from  every 
ward  of  the  several  cities  could  not  be  adopted. 

The  other  method  that  recognizes  the  essential  principle  of 
self-government — namely,  full  and  continuous  representa- 
tion— is  the  district  system  for  the  small  towns.  There  are 
two  plans  before  the  committee  for  the  district  system.  One, 
introduced  by  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  fixes  the  number  of 
members  of  the  house  at  300  and  apportions  that  number  to 
the  different  counties,  and  the  several  counties,  by  a  commis- 
sion to  be  appointed  by  some  authority,  are  to  fix  the  lines  of 
the  districts  from  which  the  representatives  are  to  be  elected. 
Mr.  Lyford's  plan,  as  I  understand  it,  and  if  I  am  not  correct 
I  would  like  to  be  corrected,  makes  the  number  of  population 
required  to  elect  each  representative,  if  the  house  is  fixed  at 
300,  about  1,370. 

The  other  system  is  that  proposed  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell.  His  plan,  as  I  understand  it,  is  this: 
It  fixes  the  number  of  representatives  at  301,  but  that  number 
could  be  changed  to  300,  or  to  295,  or  to  any  number  that  the 
Convention  sees  fit  to  adopt.  This  bill  also  provides  that 
there  shall  be  a  ratio  of  one  to  two  in  the  population  required 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  367 

for  first  and  second  representatives.  In  other  words,  it  re- 
quires twice  as  many  additional  population  to  elect  the  second 
representative  as  it  requires  to  elect  the  first.  If  the  unit  of 
population  for  the  first  representative  is  fixed  at  600  it  will 
require  1,200  additional  population  to  elect  a  second  repre- 
sentative,— or  1,800  to  elect  two  representatives.  This  plan 
will  give  more  small  towns  continuous  representation  than 
the  plan  that  requires  1,370  population  to  elect  each  repre- 
sentative, as  Mr.  Lyf  ord's  bill  provides,  and  the  country  towns 
would  get  a  larger  proportion  of  the  representation  under  the 
Mitchell  bill  than  under  the  Lyford  bill.  To  adjust  this  sys- 
tem for  practical  working,  the  number  of  representatives  be- 
ing fixed  and  unchangeable,  the  unit  of  population  required 
to  elect  the  first  representative  would  need  to  be  adjusted 
upon  a  sliding  scale,  because  population  will  increase  in  some 
localities  and  decrease  in  others.  To  meet  this  condition,  the 
Mitchell  bill  provides  that  after  each  national  census  there 
shall  be  a  new  apportionment  of  representatives  to  the  several 
counties,  in  case  the  population  has  so  changed  that  it  would 
be  unjust  to  allow  the  old  apportionment  to  stand.  The  new 
apportionment  would  be  made  by  the  legislature,  still  main- 
taining a  population  ratio  of  one  to  two  for  first  and  second 
representatives. 

There  is  another  feature  in  the  Mitchell  bill  from  which 
you  will  see  that  it  stands  upon  the  broad  ground  of  full  and 
continuous  representation.  It  really  is  the  town  and  district 
systems  combined.  It  provides  that  towns  which  have  less 
than  400  inhabitants  may  unite  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a 
representative,  thereby  securing  full  and  continuous  repre- 
sentation. The  bill  also  provides  that  towns  whose  popula- 
tion is  between  400  and  the  necessary  number — whatever 
number  may  be  fixed  for  one  representative — may  only  send 
a  representative  to  the  legislature  a  pro-rata  part  of  the  time. 

I  would  suggest,  in  order  to  have  the  bill  come  entirely 
within  the  rules  of  just  and  equal  representation,  that  it  be 
amended  so  that  the  same  rule  would  apply  to  all  the  towns 
which  have  not  a  sufficient  number  of  inhabitants  to  send  a 


368    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

representative  to  each  legislature,  in  order  that  there  would 
be  no  distinction  between  towns  having  400  or  less  and  towns 
having  400  or  more,  but  not  having  sufficient  population  to 
send  a  representative  to  each  legislature.  Let  it  stand  like 
this:  That  it  should  require  twice  as  many  votes  or  popula- 
tion for  the  second  representative  as  for  the  first;  that  all 
those  towns  whose  population  is  not  enough  to  send  a  repre- 
sentative may  elect  whether  they  will  unite  with  some  other 
town  which  has  not  enough  population  to  send  a  representa- 
tive, and  send  a  representative,  and  in  that  way  be  represent- 
ed all  the  time,  or  whether  they  will  take  their  -pro-rata  repre- 
sentation and  be  unrepresented  a  part  of  the  time.  In  that 
way  we  shall  not  violate  any  principle  of  representative  gov- 
ernment. The  system  will  be  founded  on  the  doctrine  that 
all  people  should  be  represented  all  the  time,  and  it  would 
leave  it  to  the  towns  which  have  not  sufficient  population  to 
elect  a  representative  all  the  time,  to  decide  whether  they  will 
be  represented,  all  the  time,  by  uniting  with  another  town  or 
towns,  or  whether  they  will  accept  pro-rata  representation. 

If  a  town  elected  to  remain  by  itself  and  take  pro-rata  rep- 
resentation rather  than  to  unite  with  another  town  and  be 
represented  all  the  time,  no  principle  would  be  violated. 
Each  town  would  have  the  right  of  election.  If  a  town  elected 
to  take  partial  representation  when  it  could  have  full  repre- 
sentation, partial  representation  in  that  instance  works  no 
wrong.  That  condition  of  things  is  just  and  is  a  condition 
which  in  practical  life  we  cannot  avoid.  Under  our  present 
system  of  representation  the  small  towns  having  less  than  600 
population  cannot  be  represented  all  the  time.  They  are 
obliged  to  submit  to  partial  representation  because  there  is 
no  provision  under  which  two  or  more  can  unite  and  elect  a 
representative.  Under  the  Mitchell  bill,  thus  amended,  we 
would  have  a  system  under  which  every  man  and  every  inter- 
est in  the  state  could  be  represented,  if  they  desired  to  be,  all 
the  time,  and  I  am  convinced,  after  examining  all  the  bills 
as  fully  and  carefully  as  I  have  been  able  to  do,  that  the 
Mitchell  bill  comes  nearer  embodying  the  true  idea  of  repre- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  369 

sentation,  under  our  system  of  government,  than  any  other 
proposed,  and  I  hope  the  committee  will  recommend  this  bill 
with  the  amendment  which  I  have  suggested. 

I  hope  the  action  of  the  Convention  will  be  favorable  to  it, 
and  I  believe  that  if  we,  who  have  been  sent  here  to  consider 
this  matter,  go  back  to  our  constituents  and  explain  the.  mer- 
its of  this  measure,  explain  the  necessity  of  having  a  change, 
it  will  be  ratified  by  the  people  when  submitted  to  them.  I 
have  no  doubt  that  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  will  feel 
very  much  disappointed  if  this  Convention  adjourns  without 
having  done  anything  to  reduce  the  membership  of  the  house 
of  representatives. 

If  this  cannot  be  brought  about  by  adopting  a  system  which 
recognizes  and  embodies  the  principle  of  full  representation 
all  the  time,  if  the  people  want  it,  then  I  believe  we  should 
stand  as  close  to  it  as  possible,  and  I  do  not  believe  it  would 
be  safe  to  raise  the  600  population  now  required  to  send  one 
representative  to  800.  This  is  my  deliberate  conviction. 

If  we  cannot  have  the  district  system,  I  cannot  see  any 
valid  objection  to  the  proposition  to  leave  the  unit  of  popula- 
tion required  for  the  first  representative  at  600  where  it  now 
is,  and  making  2,000  additional  population  the  unit  for  each 
additional  representative. 

Very  likely  I  am  unable  to  look  at  this  matter  from  the 
standpoint  of  my  friends  who  live  in  the  cities,  but  really  I 
cannot  see  why  they  should. feel  any  serious  anxiety  over  the 
proposition  to  leave  the  basis  for  the  first  representative  at 
600  population,  and  making  the  basis  for  the  second  2,000, 
although  there  may  be  conditions  which  do  not  occur  to  me. 

If  the  basis  of  600  for  the  first  and  2,000  for  the  second 
representative  should  be  adopted,  we  should  keep  just  the 
same  number  of  pro-rated  towns  as  we  now  have.  My  town 
would  lose  one  member,  and  the  cities  and  large  towns  gen- 
erally would  have  to  make  sacrifices.  There  is  no  question 
about  that,  but  there  would  be  this  compensating  considera- 
tion, the  small  towns  are  not  increasing,  and  in  years  to  come 
will  not  increase  in  population  to  any  considerable  extent. 
24 


370     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  cities  and  larger  towns  are  increasing  in  population  and 
therefore  will  get  increased  representation.  Nearly  all  the 
increase  in  representation  would  be  in  the  large  towns  and 
cities. 

While  I  do  not  believe  it  would  be  wise  to  remain  on  that 
basis,  still  if  we  cannot  get  a  district  system  which  embodies 
the  principle  of  full  representation  all  the  time,  my  judg- 
ment is,  that  it  is  not  wise  to  advance  the  number  of  popula- 
tion required  to  send  one  representative  from  600  to  800.  If 
it  is  carried  to  800  we  shall  disfranchise  for  a  portion  of  the 
time  forty-three  more  towns,  and  instead  of  having  sixty-eight 
which  are  disfranchised  and  unrepresented  a  portion  of  the 
time,  we  shall  have  111  towns  unrepresented  a  portion  of  the 
time.  Suppose  those  towns  stood  somewhere  between  600  and 
800  in  population,  as  they  would,  that  system  would  add 
about  30,000  more  people  to  the  disfranchised  and  un- 
represented class.  If  those  towns  should  send  representa- 
tives four  sessions  out  of  five,  there  would  be  from  5,000  to 
7,000  people  who  would  be  entirely  unrepresented  in  every 
legislature, — and  that  is  not  right. 

It  is  not  so  much  a  question  of  how  many  representatives  a 
town  has  as  that  the  town  be  represented.  One  man  may  rep- 
resent 1,000  men  and  protect  their  interests  just  as  well  as  five 
men  could  do  it,  and  the  thing  that  I  wish  to  provide  for  is, 
that  nobody  should  go  without  representation. 

The  essential  principle  is  to  have  every  man,  woman,  and 
child  in  the  state  represented.  I  do  not  mean  to  be  under- 
stood that  I  am  in  favor  of  woman's  suffrage,  for  I  believe  my 
wife  and  daughter  are  represented  when  I  am  represented.  I 
believe  that  the  person  who  by  proxy  or  otherwise  represents 
me,  represents  my  household.  If  I  did  not  believe  that,  he 
would  not  represent  me. 

I  firmly  believe  we  should  not  depart  from  the  principle  I 
have  suggested,  and  let  us  devise  some  method  embodying 
that  principle  and  submit  it  to  the  people  for  their  approval, 
so  that  when  we  go  back  to  them  we  can  say  that  we  have  sub- 
mitted a  proposition  embodying  the  fundamental  and  essen- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  371 

tial  idea  of  free  and  independent  government  by  the  people, — 
full  and  continuous  representation. 

Mr.  Dudley  of  Concord — I  move  that  the  committee  do  now 
arise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

Motion  prevailed. 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Little,  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  re- 
ported that  the  committee  had  heen  in  session  and  had  voted 
to  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

Leave  was  granted.1 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Stockwell  of  Claremont,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 

AFTEKNOON. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Leave  was  granted  the  Committee  on  Finance  to  hold  a  ses- 
sion at  this  time. 

Mr.  Daley  of  Berlin,  from  the  committee  on  the  judicial  de- 
partment, to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  offered  by  Mr. 
Edgerly  of  Somersworth  to  amend  article  ninety-three,  part 
second  of  the  Constitution,  relating  to  the  incompatibility  of 
certain  offices,  reported  the  same  with  the  following  resolu- 
tion : 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  act  upon  the  subject. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  question  being  stated, 
Shall  the  resolution  reported  by  the  committee  that  it  is  inex- 
pedient to  act  upon  the  subject,  be  adopted,  on  motion  of  Mr. 
Edgerly  of  Somersworth,  the  proposed  amendment,  together 


372     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

with  the  report  of  the  committee,,  was  laid  upon  the  table  to 
be  taken  up  and  discussed  at  some  future  time. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  further  consider 
the  various  resolutions  relating  to  representations. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Little  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Cogswell  of  Gilmanton — I  suppose,  gentlemen  of  this 
Convention,  that  it  is  the  desire  of  every  member  to  do  those 
things  in  this  Convention  that,  first,  will  satisfy  their  own 
ideas  of  right  and  wrong,  and,  secondly,  will  stand  some 
chance  of  being  ratified  by  the  people  when  the  amendments, 
if  any  are  made,  are  sent  back  to  be  voted  upon. 

I  believe  with  the  gentleman  from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Drew,  in 
that  old  democratic  doctrine  of  the  greatest  good  to  the  great- 
est number. 

I  believe  in  this  matter  of  representation  that  that  which 
will  meet  with  the  approbation  of  more  people  than  any  other 
is  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Bar- 
ton, in  so  far  as  600  population  shall  elect  the  first  represent- 
ative. Those  towns  which  do  not  to-day  have  that  number 
seem  to  be  well  satisfied  to  take  the  pro-rata  representation, 
and  it  seems  eminently  fair  to  everybody  in  the  state  that  600 
population  in  a  town  or  ward  should  elect  one  representative. 
So  far  they  are  all  on  an  equality.  As  to  the  ratio  for  the  next 
representative,  I  would  fix  it  so  that  whatever  it  might  be  it 
would  reduce  the  house  of  representatives  to  about  300. 

I  believe,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that  this  house 
could  be  reduced  so  that  every  member  of  the  house  could 
have  a  convenient  seat.  But  further  than  that  I  do  not  be- 
lieve the  best  interests  of  this  state  require  the  reduction.  I 
do  not  believe  that  they  require  a  reduction  to  any  such  num- 
ber as  100  or  150,  as  has  been  suggested.  It  has  been  said, 
and  well  said,  in  this  Convention,  and  we  have  heard  it  in 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  373 

years  gone  by,  that  the  legislature  is  a  great  educational  in- 
stitution. We  are  granting  money  year  by  year  to  old  Dart- 
mouth,, to  the  Agricultural  college,  to  the  Normal  school,  to 
educate  our  boys.  Is  there  anything  wrong  in  once  in  two 
years  appropriating  a  few  thousand  dollars  to  educate  the  peo- 
ple of  the  state? 

I  believe  if  we  send  back  a  proposition  to  be  voted  upon, 
what  will  be  more  liable  to  pass  than  anything  else  is  the 
proposition  of  600  for  the  first  representative.  What  the 
number  should  be  for  the  next  representative  I  am  not  pre- 
pared to  say.  I  believe,  however,  that  we  should  keep  intact 
our  town  lines.  There  is  some  sentiment  about  it,  but  there  is 
reality  about  it  also.  I  live  in  a  town  that  in  1810  was  the 
largest  town  in  territory  of  any  town  in  the  whole  state  and 
was  second  only  in  population.  But  it  has  been  divided  and  a 
part  has  gone  to  make  Belmont  and  a  part  to  make  Gilford, 
so  to-day  we  are  left  a  little  bit  of  the  town  of  what  once  was 
almost  a  great  republic. 

My  hopes  and  desires  are  to  help,  if  we  are  able,  those  little 
towns  maintain  what  representation  they  now  have. 

Mr.  Hubbard  of  Amherst — Gentlemen  of  the  Committee: 
It  has  been  said  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford, 
I  think,  that  we  were  sent  here  to  do  something.  I  do  not 
know  whether  we  were  or  not.  It  was  also  said  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Drew,  before  dinner,  that  there  was 
a  great  demand  for  the  reduction  of  our  legislature.  I  imme- 
diately left  the  hall  and  went  down  to  the  secretary  of  state's 
office  to  see  whether  that  was  true.  I  ascertained  what  a  tre- 
mendous demand  there  was, — 10,571  voted  for  the  call  of  this 
Convention,  and  3,287  voted  against  it.  Not  voting  at  all, 
74,989.  What  a  tremendous  demand  that  was.  And  this,  too, 
does  not  call  for  the  whole  registered  vote,  but  the  vote  that 
was  cast  for  governor.  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  that 
being  the  condition,  we  are  evidently  ahead  of  our  time.  Pub- 
lic opinion  is  not  quite  ready  for  this,  and  it  seems  to  me, 
whatever  we  do  here  and  whatever  we  are  likely  to  accom- 
plish in  this  Convention,  will  come  to  nought. 


374    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  question  seems  to  be  with  reference  to  the  basis  of  rep- 
resentation as  to  what  equality  is.  Everybody  has  demanded 
equality.  What  is  equality?  Is  it  equality  that  a  town  of  600 
people  should  be  denied  a  portion  of  the  time  a  voice  in  the 
legislative  assemblies,  and  a  ward  of  9,000  people  having  a 
representation  in  the  legislature  all  the  time  should  not  re- 
duce its  representation.  For  instance,  we  will  take  Brookline 
and  Ward  Five,  Manchester.  Brookline  has  600  people  and 
has  one  representative.  Ward  Five  has  9,000  population  and 
on  the  present  basis  it  has  eight  representatives.  If  you 
change  that  under  the  proposed  amendment  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  Brookline,  with  its  600 
population,  will  have  one  representative  still,  and  Ward  Five, 
on  the  basis  of  2,000  for  each  additional  representative,  will 
have  five — a  fair  representation,  I  submit.  If  you  change  to 
800  for  the  first  representative,  as  some  demand,  Brookline  is 
cut  out  a  part  of  the  time  from  deliberation  in  the  legislative 
assembly,  and  what  affects  Brookline  in  that  way  will  affect 
forty-two  other  towns  throughout  the  state.  But  it  will  not 
affect  any  large  town  or  ward  within  the  state  to  that  extent. 
That  is,  they  will  all  have  representation,  and  full  representa- 
tion, although  of  course  they  would  have  a  less  number  of 
representatives  than  they  now  have.  Is  it  equality  that  111 
towns  should  be  denied  representation  a  part  of  the  time  while 
the  large  towns  and  cities  have  it  all  the  time? 

The  rural  towns  of  New  Hampshire  have  been  the  balance 
wheels  of  the  state  from  its  inception  down  to  the  present  day 
and  will  continue  to  be  so  long  as  she  has  any  balance  wheel, 
and  in  saying  that  I  cast  no  reflections  upon  the  citizens  of 
any  city,  whether  native  born  or  foreign  born.  That  citizen 
who  is  loyal  to  our  flag,  to  our  Constitution,  to  our  educa- 
tional institutions — the  bulwark  of  our  liberties  and  the  head- 
lights of  our  nation — he  is  a  true  American  citizen  whether 
he  was  born  on  the  hills  of  America  or  on  the  sunny  vales  of 
Spain,  while  that  citizen  who  holds  allegiance  to  any  foreign 
prince  or  potentate  as  above  the  president  of  the  United 
States,  is  not  a  true  American  citizen,  and  if  such  there  be  I 
do  not  want  to  trust  the  reins  of  government  in  their  hands. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  375 

The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  has  very  ably 
recommended  to  us  the  district  system,  and  doubtless  that 
system  will  sooner  or  later  be  adopted  in  its  own  good  time. 
When  public  opinion  calls  for  a  change,  the  change  will  come, 
and  satisfaction  will  finally  be  attained,  as  time  and  again  has 
been  proved  in  our  country.  We  well  know  how  our  states- 
men in  our  halls  of  congress  wrangled  for  years,  yes,  for 
generations  against  slavery  until  finally  public  opinion  thun- 
dered forth  the  decree  that  slavery  was  a  blot  upon  our  fair 
land  and  must  be  abolished,  and  from  ocean  to  ocean  those 
thunders  rolled,  and  did  not  die  away  until  the  last  clank  of 
the  slave  chain  was  heard,  and  the  last  star  of  secession  was 
obliterated.  And  later  over  Cuba's  fair  and  bleeding  form  a 
reunited  nation  proclaimed  that  glorious  union  as  Daniel 
Webster  would  have  it,  "one  and  inseparable." 

Now,  gentlemen  of  New  Hampshire,  I  do  not  propose  to 
take  up  your  time.  Do  not  be  swayed  by  the  oratorical  powers 
of  any  members  of  this  Convention  unless  their  argument 
warrants  it.  Eemember  the  fundamental  principles  which  un- 
derlie our  Constitution,  and  stand  for  the  best  interests  of 
your  state  and  enable  our  people  to  maintain  their  rights  in 
our  legislative  assemblies,  and  rest  assured  that  public  opinion 
in  its  own  good  time  will  shape  the  destinies  of  the  Constitu- 
tion and  of  our  state,  and  all  will  be  well. 

Mr.  McAllister  of  Manchester — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentle- 
men of  the  Committee:  The  question  now  before  the  com- 
mittee is  one  of  vital  importance  to  every  inhabitant  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire. 

It  is  important  that  representation  in  the  house  shall  be 
based  upon  principles  of  equality  as  set  forth  in  the  Con- 
stitution which  we  all  honor  and  revere.  It  is  important  that 
all  of  the  inhabitants,  the  high  and  the  low,  the  rich  and  the 
poor,  those  in  towns  as  well  as  those  in  the  cities,  those  who 
work  in  our  factories  as  well  as  those  who  work  in  our  fields, 
shall  have  representation  all  the  time  in  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives. 


376     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Gentlemen,,  I  have  heard  delegates  from  the  smaller  towns 
say  that  the  fact  that  such  a  town  could  send  a  representative 
here,  gave  its  citizens  comfort  and  encouragement.  If  that  be 
true  for  a  town  of  600  inhabitants,  it  ought  to  be  true  for  a 
town  of  450  or  599  inhabitants.  It  seem  to  me  it  is  fair  and 
equitable  that  all  of  the  people  should  be  represented,  and 
that  all  should  have  this  encouragement. 

Gentlemen,  I  believe  that  a  very  large  majority  of  those 
present  think  that  the  district  system  is  the  best  and  fairest 
system,  because  it  is  founded  upon  principles  of  equality  and 
justice.  Gentlemen,  let  us  be  true  to  our  convictions  and  vote 
to  adopt  a  system  which  would  allow  all  of  the  people  to  be 
represented  all  of  the  time  in  the  house  of  representatives. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover — I  do  not  propose  to  take  up  the 
time  of  this  Convention  for  any  length,  but  only  to  say  a  few 
words  in  reply  to  the  suggestion  that  has  been  made  at  various 
times  during  this  discussion  and  especially  by  the  advocates 
of  the  district  system.  It  was  touched  upon  by  the  gentleman 
from  Amherst,  Mr.  Hubbard,  I  think,  who  preceded  the  gen- 
tleman from  Manchester. 

It  has  been  said  here  frequently  that  we  have  been  called 
here  at  the  demand  of  the  people  to  reduce  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives. If  the  gentlemen  who  claim  that  we  must  do 
something  in  order  to  satisfy  that  demand  will  inquire  into  it, 
they  would  find  that  we  came  very  near  not  coming  here  at 
all.  Three  times  since  the  Convention  of  1889  this  question 
was  submitted  to  the  people,  once  in  1893,  when  it  was  beaten 
by  a  decisive  vote,  and  again  in  1895,  when  also  it  was  beaten 
by  a  decisive  vote.  There  was  no  demand  then,  there  was  no 
call  then  for  a  convention  coming  together.  A  few  years  later 
this  convention  was  called,  but,  as  has  been  said,  it  was  called 
by  a  vote  of  a  little  over  10,000.  Gentlemen,  that  represents 
about  one  twelfth  of  the  voters  of  New  Hampshire.  I  do  not 
mean  of  those  who  cast  their  ballots,  but  according  to  the 
tables  of  the  gentleman  from  Hanover,  Mr.  Colby,  there  are 
some  122,000  native  born  and  naturalized  citizens  in  this  state 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  377 

of  the  age  of  twenty-one  and  over,  and  only  10,000  of  those 
desired  this  Convention  enough  to  vote  for  it,  and  one  in 
eight  of  those  came  from  the  city  of  Concord.  Concord  evi- 
dently desired  us  to  come  here. 

I  do  not  think  this  is  such  an  important  matter  as  has  "been 
intimated  by  the  speakers.  Certainly  we  were  sent  here  to  do 
a  certain  thing,  and  while  I  think  there  should  be  some  re- 
dution  I  don't  think  the  people  of  the  state  would  be  greatly 
disappointed  if  but  little  should  be  done  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Woodbury  of  Bedford — It  was  unfortunate  for  us  all 
that  the  gentleman  from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Drew,  should  not 
have  been  present  during  the  whole  of  this  Convention,  for  if 
he  had  he  would  have  felt  it  unnecessary  to  have  exhorted  all 
his  associates  to  arise  to  the  highest  plane  of  individual  self- 
sacrifice  in  considering  this  important  question.  No  man  can 
listen  to  the  debates  as  they  have  proceeded  since  we  con- 
vened without  being  convinced  that  it  has  been  the 
earnest  desire  and  purpose  of  every  one  to  find  some  method 
which  would  subserve  just  the  very  purpose  which  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lancaster  so  eloquently  described  to  us.  He 
tells  us,  and  tells  us  truly,  that  what  we  should  do  is  to  search 
for  equality — an  ideal  condition  of  equality.  But  if  we  are 
to  pursue  that  search  with  perfect  singleness  of  purpose,  I 
think  we  ought  to  take  up  the  amendment  in  favor  of  wo- 
man's suffrage  before  we  go  any  further.  If  there  is  any  in- 
equality it  begins  there.  Again,  upon  what  basis  of  equality 
is  the  age  of  twenty-one  fixed  before  a  man  is  entitled  to 
exercise  his  franchise? 

Any  system  of  representation  is  directly  affected  with  fea- 
tures of  inequality.  It  cannot  be  otherwise  in  human  affairs. 

If  I  understand  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Lyford,  correctly,  it  provides  that  the  counties  of 
the  state  shall  be  divided  into  legislative  districts,  and  where 
the  population  of  any  given  district  reaches  a  certain  figure 
one  representative  shall  be  chosen  from  that  district.*  What 
happens  (I  ask  for  information)  when  the  population  ex- 
ceeds that  number? 


378    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  am  very  glad  to  explain  that  to 
the  gentleman.  The  bill  as  offered  by  me  provides  that  a 
district  may  have  one  or  more  members,  if  it  is  advisable.  If 
the  fractions  come  so  that  it  is  better  to  put  two  or  more 
members  into  the  district,  then  two  or  three,  or  four  or  five 
towns  would  be  grouped  in  that  way.  Did  I  answer  the  gen- 
tleman? 

Mr.  Woodbury — Yes,  sir.  But  under  no  system,  if  I  un- 
derstand it  rightly,  will  it  be  true  that  all  the  inhabitants  of 
all  the  districts  are  represented  all  the  time.  What  shall  we 
do  when  the  number  in  any  given  district  falls  below  the 
number  that  constitutes  the  basis? 

Mr.  Lyford — The  districts  will  be  made  up  for  each  decade. 
Of  course  there  will  be  a  variation  of  population  during  the 
decade,  but  that  will  not  infringe  the  lines  of  the  districts. 
The  districts  will  be  made  up  of  territory  as  nearly  equal  in 
population  as  may  be  so  that  there  will  be  no  large  surplus  of 
population. 

Mr.  Woodbury — Even  under  those  conditions  there  will  be 
portions  of  the  time  when  the  rankest  inequality  will  prevail. 
I  do  not  pretend  that  there  is  any  way  to  avoid  it,  but  when 
gentlemen  rise  here  and  declare  that  the  district  system  pro- 
duces perfect  equality,  that  all  the  people  are  represented  all 
the  time,  I  can  not  feel  as  though  that  statement  had  as  yet 
been  substantiated. 

The  gentleman  from  Laconia,  Mr.  Busiel,  who  addressed  us 
so  ably  and  so  eloquently  yesterday,  pointed  out  that  in  the 
Bill  of  Rights  our  fathers  declared  what  should  be  the  princi- 
ples of  equality,  but  he  omitted  to  go  on  to  the  next  step  and 
point  out  how  they  proposed  to  give  us  equality.  The  pur- 
pose they  had  is  our  purpose  now.  Our  purposes  have  not 
changed.  The  way  in  which  they  proposed  to  give  each  other 
equality  at  that  time  is  found  in  the  Constitution  which  they 
then  framed,  and  under  which  substantially  we  have  been 
living  ever  since.  The  term  "equality"  is  not  a  mathematical 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  379 

term.,  not  an  arbitrary  term.  It  is  a  term  that  necessarily 
varies  in  accordance  with  the  conditions  surrounding  it.  We 
understand  by  equality  not  the  same  thing  as  the  ladies  who 
addressed  us  yesterday  understand  by  equality.  Under  the 
Constitution  equality  is  found  by  fixing  that  proportion  of 
the  people  who  can  send  one  representative  and  then  an  ad- 
ditional number  who  can  send  additional  representatives. 
That  is  the  equality  that  they  fixed  at  the  time  they  framed 
the  Constitution,  and  that  is  the  equality  we  now  have  under 
the  present  system. 

It  has  been  said  that  this  is  not  equality,  because  a  town  of 
600  would  have  one  representative  whereas  a  town  of  1,000 
would  have  only  one  representative,  and  that  the  representa- 
tive from  such  a  town  represents  600  of  the  population  of 
that  town  and  the  other  400  are  unrepresented.  Is  not  the 
same  true  under  the  district  system,  at  any  rate,  during  a  por- 
tion of  the  time  in  any  given  decade  ? 

We  are  engaged  in  a  very  grave  and  serious  task.  These 
are  to  be  amendments  to  the  Constitution.  Ought  we  not 
first  to  inquire  whether  they  are  improvements  to  the  Con- 
stitution? They  are  amendments,  but  are  they  improve- 
ments? 

I  came  here  without  any  previous  impression.  I  came  here, 
I  am  free  to  say,  in  the  densest  ignorance,  and  I  have  sat  here 
at  the  feet  of  the  speakers  who  have  addressed  us  and  have 
obtained  something  to  take  home  with  me;  and  I  cannot  but 
feel  that  we  should  approach  this  venerable  instrument  in  no 
other  way  than  with  the  greatest  caution,  and  with  a  desire 
only  to  improve  it  in  such  a  way  that  our  actions  will  be  en- 
dorsed by  the  people  when  they  come  to  vote  upon  the  propo- 
sitions we  submit. 

it  has  been  said  that  the  house  must  be  reduced,  because 
the  building  was  not  large  enough,  or  the  seats  were  too  near 
together,  or  something  of  that  nature.  Can  anyone  truly  say 
that  there  has  gone  out  from  the  people  a  complaint  that  we 
are  not  properly  represented.  No  one  has  heard  any  such  state- 
ment made  by  any  considerable  body  of  the  people  whatever. 


380     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

So  before  we  tinker  with  the  Constitution  which  has  stood  so 
long,  with  a  system  that  corresponds  with  the  Bill  of  Eights 
laid  down  so  long  ago,  we  ought  to  see  whether  the  structure 
which  our  fathers  built  is  wholly  defective,  whether  the  tim- 
bers are  unsound,  whether  it  rests  on  an  unstable  foundation. 
The  gentlemen  have  not  done  so  as  yet,  I  submit. 

Our  system  of  electing  representatives  to  our  legislature  is 
identically  the  same  on  a  small  scale  as  the  system  for  elect- 
ing representatives  to  the  United  States  house  of  representa- 
tives, our  house  of  representatives  corresponding  with  Hie 
lower  branch  of  congress.  The  basis  of  representation  for 
the  legislature  is  that  one  or  more  from  every  town  will  go 
to  the  popular  branch,  the  house  of  representatives  of  the 
state,  and  there  represent  his  town,  while  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation for  congress  is  that  the  state  is  divided  into  districts 
and  representatives  are  elected  from  those  districts  to  the 
more  popular  branch  of  congress  for  the  purpose  of  repre- 
senting the  state  in  that  branch.  What  should  we  think  if  it 
should  appear  that  in  one  of  the  congressional  districts  in  this 
state  there  was  not  enough  population  to  elect  one  represent a- 
tive,  and  therefore  the  second  congressional  district,  for  in- 
stance, of  New  Hampshire,  was  to  be  classed  with  the  Third 
Massachusetts  district  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  represent- 
ative to  congress?  We  would  regard  it  as  an  utter  violation  of 
the  principles  on  which  the  government  rests.  So  I  say  with 
reference  to  state  representation  we  ought  to  be  very  careful 
before  we  lay  violent  hands  upon  the  present  town  system 
and  tear  that  away  and  throw  it  out  of  doors  simply  because 
some  gentlemen  come  here  from  Massachusetts  and  say  that 
we  should  do  what  has  been  done  there  with  their  approval. 

For  me,  I  am  prepared  to  go  home  and  say  we  have  decided 
to  do  nothing.  Some  may  say  that  that  is  an  acknowledgment 
of  our  inability  to  solve  the  problem.  It  is  admitted.  But 
gentlemen,  it  may  not  perhaps  be  correct  to  say  we  have  done 
nothing,  for  we  have  gone  down  to  the  basis  on  which  the 
Constitution  rests,  we  have  examined  the  structure  built  so 
long  ago,  we  have  found  it  sound  in  all  its  essential  princi- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  381 

pies,  and  we  have  determined  that  at  the  present  time  we  can 
do  nothing  to  improve  it,  and  we  have  no  recommendations 
to  make  in  the  way  of  changing  this  structure  at  this  time. 
Future  evils  may  be  dealt  with  hereafter,  but  for  the  present 
we  discover  no  evils  worthy  of  so  great  sacrifice  as  is  involved 
in  the  change  of  the  system  to-day  existing  for  the  election  of 
representatives  of  the  people  to  the  popular  branch  of  the 
legislature. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention:  I 
did  not  come  up  here  for  the  sake  of  making  any  speeches, 
and  I  had  thought  to  maintain  silence  and  listen  to  others 
throughout  this  session,  but  it  seems  to  me  it  has  become  the 
duty  of  all  of  us  who  have  anything  to  say  to  say  it,  whether 
we  say  it  well  or  otherwise,  and  therefore  I  do  not  consider 
it  presumption  in  me  to  address  this  body  of  eminent  men. 

The  gentleman  from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Drew,  this  forenoon 
stated  in  the  most  eloquent  terms  that  the  very  foundation  of 
our  whole  system  of  government  was  equality,  and  I  suppose 
what  he  meant  was  that  one  man  was  as  good  as  another — at 
any  rate  in  matters  of  government — and  that  every  man 
should  have  just  as  much  voice  and  power  in  acting  on  the 
various  questions  of  government,  and  as  much  right  to  express 
his  opinion  as  any  other  man.  That  is  not  the  case  under  our 
present  system  of  electing  representatives,  because  while  in 
deciding  who  shall  be  representative  from  Exeter,  my  vote 
counts  just  as  much  as  that  of  my  Brother  Eastman.  When 
the  question  has  been  decided  as  to  who  shall  represent  Exe- 
ter, the  man  or  men  so  chosen  represent  nearly  5,000  inhabi- 
tants, and  the  representatives  that  we  send  do  not  in  the 
aggregate  have  five  times  as  much  voice,  or  five  times  as  many 
votes,  on  any  particular  measure  proposed  as  the  representa- 
tive of  a  town  which  has  600  inhabitants.  In  other  words, 
one  man  is  as  good  as  another  and  better,  too,  as  the  Irishman 
says,  if  he  happens  to  live  in  a  country  town.  That  is  not 
equality,  but  what  of  it?  It  does  not  follow  from  that,  per- 
haps, that  a  district  system  where  each  district  has  just  so 


382    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

many  representatives  as  it  has  population  would  be  the  better. 
Mathematically  and  theoretically  that  is  the  ideal  system,  and 
if  we  were  here  to  make  a  Constitution  and  not  merely  to  de- 
cide what  changes  in  our  present  Constitution  we  should  pro- 
pose to  the  people,  we  might  conclude,  and  probably  should 
conclude,  that  it  would  be  well  to  adopt  a  district  system. 

I  am,  as  you  see,  in  favor  of  a  district  system,  but  we  al- 
ready have  a  district  system.  That  is  to  say,  no  man  who 
comes  here  as  a  representative  from  any  of  the  larger  towns 
represents  the  whole  community,  nor  does  he  properly  repre- 
sent the  whole  town  from  which  he  comes.  The  town  of  Exe- 
ter, which  has  5,000  inhabitants,  is  partly  as  rural  as  any  por- 
tion of  a  small  country  town,  and  partly  as  urban  as  any  of 
the  streets  of  Manchester  where  the  factory  operatives  pass 
back  and  forth.  Whoever  comes  here  from  Exeter  represents 
people  who  have  different  wishes,  different  modes  of  living, 
and  are  widely  apart  in  their  occupations  and  interests  in  gen- 
eral. And  so  I  say  that  no  one  man  from  such  a  town  can 
represent  all  of  the  people  in  that  town. 

The  town  system  is  the  district  system.  What  is  the  town 
but  a  district?  However,  the  question  is  not,  as  I  said  before, 
How  should  we  construct  our  Constitution  if  we  are  making  a 
new  one,  but  the  question  is,  What  is  the  action  for  us  to  take 
and  how  shall  we  do  it  in  order  to  reduce  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives ? 

That  there  is  occasion  to  reduce  the  number  of  the  house  of 
representatives  I  shall  not  argue  for  it  is  a  settled  fact  known 
to  the  majority  of  those  who  took  the  trouble  to  vote  upon 
the  question  this  last  time,  and  known  to  all  who  have 
watched  legislation  during  the  past  few  years  as  conducted  in 
the  hall  where  we  are  now,  that  the  house  should  be  reduced 
quite  materially — reduced  enough  to  make  it  sufficiently 
small  so  the  business  can  be  conducted  with  reasonable  con- 
venience to  the  members  themselves.  I  take  it  for  granted 
that  a  reduction  to  300  would  be  sufficient,  and  I  think  every- 
body admits  that  that  would  be  a  sufficient  reduction.  I  am, 
therefore,  in  favor  of  a  reduction  somewhere  in  the  vicinity 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  383 

of  100  so  that  the  house  will  remain  at  about  300.  I  think 
there  would  be  no  difficulty  if  that  were  the  only  question  be- 
fore us,  but  when  we  come  to  the  question  whether  we  shall 
adopt  the  district  system  or  the  town  system  in  reducing  the 
house,  we  then  come  to  a  place  where  we  have  already  inequal- 
ity, and  where,  as  I  say,  one  man's  vote  if  he  lives  in  a  small 
town  counts  for  more  that  if  he  lives  in  a  larger  community. 
But  have  great  evils  arisen  from  that  state  of  affairs?  If  the 
Constitution  of  New  Hampshire  does  not  produce  anything 
but  theoretical  injustice,  why  should  we  seek  to  remove  the 
inequality  that  does  no  harm?  We  can  reduce  the  number  of 
representatives,  and  leave  precisely  the  same  amount  of  rela- 
tive inequality  that  now  exists.  What  does  that  involve?  It 
is  only  necessary  to  increase  the  number  of  inhabitants  that 
would  entitle  the  town  to  send  one  representative,  and  to  in- 
crease the  number  for  the  second  representative  in  propor- 
tion. For  instance,  if  we  increase  the  number  for  the  first 
representative  from  600  to  800,  we  would  increase  the  num- 
ber for  the  second  representative  from  1,200  to  1,600 — 1,600 
being  twice  eight,  as  1,200  is  now  twice  six — and  thus  retain 
mathematically  the  same  ratio  of  inequality  as  we  now  have, 
and  which  inequality  has  thus  far  proved  harmless.  In  that 
way  we  injure  no  one,  but  do  accomplish  the  result  which  we, 
in  fact,  were  sent  here  to  accomplish — the  reduction  of  the 
house  of  representatives  to  a  reasonable  number,  and  we  shall 
not  have  dispensed  with  the  system  of  representation  under 
which  the  affairs  of  this  state  are  managed,  and  well  enough 
managed,  and  under  which  they  have  been  so  managed  during 
all  these  years.  I  think  we  might  well  all  agree  to  that  method. 
To  entitle  a  town  to  one  representative  it  would  then  have  to 
have  a  population  of  800,  and  for  any  additional  representa- 
tive a  population  of  1,600  more,  and  thus  we  should  leave  the 
same  amount  of  inequality  that  now  exists,  and  it  would  not 
increase  the  manifest  inequality  to  the  extent  of  making  it 
dangerous.  In  its  present  extent  it  has  not  proved  at  all  dan- 
gerous, it  has  wrought  no  evil,  and  therefore  it  will  undoubt- 
edly be  safe  to  continue  it;  but  let  us  not  increase  that  in- 


384     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

equality  so  that  it  will  work  an  evil,  as  we  should  be  doing  if 
we  increased  it  by  adopting  the  bill  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  and  have  600  population 
necessary  for  the  first  representative  and  an  additional  2,000 
for  each  additional  representative.  Let  us  stay  where  we  now 
are  as  to  this  ratio  of  inequality. 

The  only  objection  that  has  been  urged  to  this  increase  of 
the  unit  of  representation  from  600  to  800,  or  something  else, 
is  that  there  will  be  more  classed  towns.  The  delegates  from 
these  classed  towns  certainly  know  what  the  interests  of  their 
constituents  are,  and  they  have  studied  upon  this  subject 
fully  as  well  as  those  who  come  from  the  larger  places,  and 
their  views  are  entitled  to  respect.  I  have  talked  with  quite 
a  number  of  them,  and  I  think  from  what  I  have  learned  that 
the  people  of  the  smaller  towns  would  be  abundantly  satisfied 
if  their  representation  were  cut  down  to  the  extent  it  would 
be  by  increasing  the  number  necessary  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative to  800,  if  they  were  allowed  to  unite  together  to 
elect  a  representative  precisely  as  is  proposed  in  the  amend- 
ment or  the  resolution  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  which  is  the  same  in  substance  as 
the  resolution  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Newport, 
Mr.  Barton,  with  a  local  option  feature  added,  the  other 
difference  being  that  the  number  necessary  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative is  increased.  Under  the  proposed  resolution  or 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Mitchell,  towns  not  having  a  sufficient  population  to  send 
one  representative,  by  their  own  voluntary  act — not  against 
their  will — can  be  united  into  representative  districts.  With 
the  exception  of  that  local  option  feature  and  the  fact  that  it 
leaves  the  unit  of  representation  undetermined,  to  be  deter- 
mined by  some  other  person  or  body,  the  state  treasurer,  or 
the  secretary  of  state,  or  anyone  that  seems  to  the  Convention 
to  be  proper,  it  is  the  same  as  the  Barton  amendment,  and  I 
myself  trust — although  I  am  in  favor  of  the  district  system 
because  I  think  it  theoretically  the  best — that  under  the  pres- 
ent conditions  this  inequality  that  now  exists  will  not  be  in- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  385 

creased,  but  will  be  allowed  to  remain  as  it  is  by  the  adoption 
of  the  resolution  introduced  or  proposed  by  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell. 

Mr.  Evans  of  Xorth  Hampton — Gentlemen  of  the  Commit- 
tee: I,  too,  am  one  of  those  who  did  not  intend  to  speak. 

"There  is  nothing  new  under  the  sun."  We  have  face  to 
face  here  two  principles  that  have  been  in  conflict  since  the 
beginning  of  man — the  principle  of  conservatism  and  the 
principle  of  progress.  These  two  principles  collided  in  the 
French  revolution  and  in  the  American  revolution,  and  again 
in  the  Civil  war,  and  they  are  in  conflict  to-day  here  in  this 
assembly. 

I  stand  here  as  a  delegate  from  one  of  the  smaller  towns — 
a  town  of  812  population.  I  rejoice  that  I  stand  here  for  that 
town,  not  simply  because  it  is  desirous  that  our  legislative 
body  shall  be  reduced,  but  also  because  it  is  ready  and  expect- 
ing to  lose  its  representative  and  to  take  up  the  best  district 
system. 

When  I  came  to  New  Hampshire  some  five  years  ago  I 
came  as  a  student  of  man,  in  some  sense,  perhaps,  a  sociolo- 
gist. The  most  distinctive  mark  of  New  Hampshire  people 
that  came  early  to  my  attention  was  that  of  conservatism, 
holding  to  the  old,  to  tradition.  It  was  a  cry  of  ruts.  "Keep 
us  in  our  ruts."  In  the  country  towns  and  in  the  country 
parishes  through  your  state  I  found  this  most  distinctive 
mark  of  conservatism.  You  and  I  know  that  conservatism  is 
good,  provided  you  are  on  the  right  way  to  Heaven,  but  a 
curse  if  you  are  going  the  other  way. 

When  I  was  elected  to  come  to  this  Convention  as  delegate, 
I  took  in  hand  this  problem  of  the  reduction  of  our  house  of 
representatives,  and  I  studied  it  carefully.  As  a  boy  in  col- 
lege I  had  been  taught  in  the  science  of  government,  and  had 
learned  that  the  ideal  of  representative  government  was  that 
all  the  people  should  be  equally  represented  all  the  time.  I 
knew,  of  course,  that  absolute  numerical  equality  of  repre- 
sentation was  impossible,  but  to  uphold  the  principles  of  our 
25 


386     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

government  it  was  necessary  for  us  to  get  as  near  equality  in 
this  respect  as  possible.  So  when  I  came  here  I  was  simply 
astonished  at  the  tendency  to  violate  this  fundamental  prin- 
ciple of  representative  government.  More  than  that,  I  am 
astonished  that  men  of  intelligence  in  this  Convention 
who  know  what  is  right,  are  perfectly  willing  to  raise  expe- 
diency a,bove  what  they  know  to  be  right,  because  you,  as  in- 
telligent and  moral  men,  know  that  expediency  and  right  are 
not  always  the  same.  Personally,  I  believe  the  darkest  pages 
in  our  American  history  have  been  the  results  of  compromises. 

So,  again,  we  are  held  fast  by  this  cry  of  ruts.  The  town 
says,  "Save  us,  save  us  to  our  ruts.  Save  us  to  our  conserva- 
tism." They  raise  the  cry  of  privilege.  Privilege  in  repre- 
sentation is  the  greatest  gift  of  a  free  people.  Is  that  privi- 
lege based  on  merit  in  this  case? 

I  have  done,  perhaps,  what  some  of  you  may  not  have  done. 
I  have  come  to  live  as  a  Christian  minister  in  one  of  these 
New  England  towns.  I  have  been  interested  in  these  people 
and  have  given  the  best  of  my  mind  and  heart  to  help  these 
people.  I  have  gone  through  your  state  here  and  there  and 
studied  the  people  of  New  Hampshire.  As  a  result  of  this  ex- 
perience and  study,  I  am  not  ready  to  say  that  the  country 
towns  of  New  Hampshire  deserve  this  great  privilege. 

A  few  years  ago  your  honored  governor  of  the  state  wrote 
that  you  were  falling  back  in  the  country  towns  of  New 
Hampshire;  that  you  were  not  in  a  rut  that  leads  to  Heaven. 
In  so  saying,  he  might  have  said  the  same  of  the  country 
towns  in  all  New  England,  for  I  know  it  is  true,  and  I  know 
it  is  true  in  New  Hampshire.  There  has  not  been  an  ethical 
or  religious  congress  in  New  England  for  five  years  in  which 
the  problem  of  the  country  town  has  not  been  parelleled 
with  the  problem  of  the  city  slum.  The  country  towns  are 
going  back.  I,  too,  know  something  of  the  ignorance,  some- 
thing of  the  conservatism,  something  of  that  unmoral  lethargy 
that  seems  to  be  bred  in  the  country  people  of  the  state,  and 
the  question  now  arises,  Shall  we  return  the  right  of  privilege 
in  representation  to  a  country  town  because  of  its  ignorance, 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER '10,  1902.  387 

because  of  its  conservatism,  because,,  shall  I  say,  of  its  im- 
moral lethargy? 

My  friends  of  the  country  towns,  some  of  you  men  as  types 
of  politicians  I  know.  I  know  your  character  and  your 
claims.  Others  of  you  I  know  as  living  in  the  face  of  this  un- 
favorable condition  of  the  small  towns  with  regret  and  the 
deepest  dissatisfaction.  Is  this  not  a  time  to  put  aside  selfish 
political  ambitions  and  dull  our  ears  to  tile  cry  of  the  ruts, 
sink  our  old  established  ideas  and  for  the  good  of  the  state 
yield  to  the  demand  of  the  fundamental  principle  of  true 
government  that  all  men  should  have  equal  representation. 
For  this  cry  for  privilege  on  the  part  of  the  small  town  to  me 
seems  nothing  less  than  a  crime  against  the  most  fundamental 
principle  of  representative  government. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — Gentlemen  of  the  Committee: 
To  say  that  I  am  surprised  at  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman 
who  has  just  addressed  this  committee  is  putting  it  exceeding- 
ly mild.  I  regret  that  he  has  sacrificed  so  much  for  the  coun- 
try towns  of  New  Hampshire,  and  in  spite  of  it  all  that  they 
are  still  going  back. 

You  talk  about  you  equality  of  representation  and  about 
the  fundamental  principle  of  government  being  such  equality. 
Why,  gentlemen,  let  us  consider  the  proposition  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Drew,  or  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  consider  their  remarks  when  they  ad- 
dressed this  house  so  eloquently  and  appealed  to  us  on  the 
ground  that  there  must  be  equal  representation.  Is  not  there 
a  great  injustice  and  a  great  inequality,  gentlemen,  in  the 
district  system. 

There  may  be  10,000  people  in  one  county  divided  up  into 
districts,  and  a  very  large  majority  of  the  people  may  not  be 
equally  represented  with  others,  in  this,  that  they  will  have 
more  men  to  represent  them  from  one  county  than  those  in 
other  counties  and  other  representative  districts.  Is  that 
equality? 

The  gentlemen  have  appealed  to  us  on  the  ground  of  econ- 


388    JOUIINAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

omy,  but  I  submit  to  the  intelligence  of  this  body  that  wo 
should  never  sacrifice  the  high  class  of  legislation  we  have 
had  for  the  sake  of  economy.  Never,  gentlemen.  Whatever 
the  cost  may  be,  let  us  maintain  the  high  character  and  the 
high  class  of  New  Hampshire  legislation. 

Now  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  presents 
his  district  system,  and  he  must  admit  that  there  is  inequality 
in  that  even.  He^  urges  a  change,  but  fails  to  give  us  any 
reason  for  the  change. 

In  a  very  exhaustive  and  elaborate  argument  yesterday  af- 
ternoon, in  which  he  appealed  to  our  past  history,  and  called 
to  his  aid  the  speech  of  Washington,  he  referred  to  our  friend 
Colonel  Scott  because  he  had  held  office  a  great  many  years 
in  Hillsborough  county.  He  dealt  fairly  with  my  good  friend, 
the  colonel,  and  said  that  he  had  always  done  honor  to  himself 
and  to  those  whom  he  represented.  But  when  you  come  to 
office  holding  I  think  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Ly- 
ford, has  had  his  share.  Now,  gentlemen,  that  is  not  argu- 
ment; that  has  nothing  to  do  with  the  system  or  the  question 
under  consideration. 

The  gentleman  from  Acworth,  Mr.  Mitchell,  comes  down 
here  and  he  appeals  to  us  and  asks  us  out  of  sympathy  to  allow 
these  small  country  towns  representation.  The  gentleman 
from  North  Hampton  says  that  you  have  no  right  to  come 
here  and  ask  that  which  is  right  and  just,  and  ask  it  on  the 
ground  of  sympathy.  Well,  gentlemen,  you  will  have  my 
support,  not  on  the  ground  of  sympathy,  but  because  I  believe 
it  is  just  and  I  believe  it  is  right.  I  agree  that  no  sympathy 
should  enter  into  this  question. 

The  gentleman  from  Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  says  that 
in  one  ward  in  Franklin  there  are  about  1,000  over  the  1,370 
that  would  be  necessary  to  choose  a  representative  under  the 
district  system,  and  suggests  that  that  1,000  might  be  at- 
tached to  the  town  of  Bow,  for  instance,  and  thus  help  Bow. 
But,  gentlemen,  that  would  not  be  the  result.  In  that  case 
the  town  of  Bow  would  be  helping  the  ward  in  Franklin  to 
have  two  representatives.  Would  not  that  be  the  practical 
effect  of  such  a  distribution  under  the  district  system? 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  389 

Now  we  ought  to  consider  this  matter  and  find  out  what 
the  difficulty  is.  The  gentleman  from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Drew, 
this  morning  advanced  only  one  argument  against  the  present 
system,  that  of  inequality;  but  the  proposition  that  he  so  fully 
described  here  is  as  unequal  as  the  present  system.  Why 
should  we  depart  from  this  system,  a  system  which  has  served 
us  so  well  and  so  long? 

I  remember  a  few  years  ago  when  I  was  an  officer  here  in 
the  legislature,  there  was  an  uprising  of  the  people  in  the 
state  against  the  so-called  assessment  orders,  and  the  gentle- 
men of  this  great  legislative  body  took  the  matter  in  hand, 
and  in  a  strong,  honest  way  wiped  out  legislation  that  allowed 
the  incorporation  of  these  orders  and  purged  the  state  of 
those  companies  which  had  come  in  from  New  Jersey  and 
Maine  and  were  incorporated  under  the  laws  of  those  states. 
New  Hampshire  legislation,  as  has  been  repeatedly  said,  com- 
pares favorably  with  the  legislation  of  any  state  in  this  Union. 

Now  why  do  they  tell  us  that  we  should  change  ?  Why  does 
the  gentleman  from  North  Hampton  tell  us  we  should 
change?  He  says  it  is  conservative,  that  it  is  against  prog- 
ress. Gentlemen,  let  us  be  conservative  so  long  as  the  course 
we  have  ever  pursued  has  served  us  so  well.  I  am  willing  to 
be  called  conservative  if  that  means  upholding  a  principle 
which  has  always  given  to  this  state  high  class  legislation, 
and  we  should  never  depart  from  that  system  unless  there  is 
some  reason  given  other  than  that  the  state  house  is  not  large 
enough,  or  that  we  are  too  conservative. 

Referring  to  that  remark  of  the  late  governor  of  New 
Hampshire, — I  care  not  whether  he  be  governor  of  this  state 
or  any  other  office  holder,  that  reflection  cast  upon  my  native 
state  I  denounced  then,  and  I  denounce  now,  as  absolutely 
false. 

The  gentleman  from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Drew,  paid  a  glow- 
ing and  splendid  tribute  to  the  honesty  and  the  integrity  of 
our  country  towns.  We  can  trust  them;  we  can  trust  the 
cities;  we  can  trust  the  citizens  of  New  Hampshire.  We  are 
not  going  back,  we  are  not  false.  We  are  here  legislating  for 


390    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  best  interests  of  our  beloved  state.  Let  us  approach  the 
question  in  the  spirit  of  fairness,  and  let  us  deal  with  it  in 
the  way  that  will  give  to  the  entire  state  the  highest  possible 
equality. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter — For  the  purpose  of  receiving  a 
communication  from  the  president,  I  move  that  the  commit- 
tee do  now  arise. 

In  Convention. 
(The  Pesident  in  the  chair.) 

The  President — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention:  The  atten- 
tion of  the  chair,  at  the  noon  recess,  was  called  to  a  fact  by 
the  chairman  of  the  Finance  Committee,  which  seemed  of 
sufficient  importance  to  present  to  the  Convention.  It  was 
not  given  to  the  Convention  at  the  opening  of  the  session  this 
afternoon  because  of  a  desire  to  verify  the  figures  and  be  sure 
that  no  error  had  been  made.  The  chairman  of  the  Finance 
Committee  informed  the  chair  that  upon  conference  with  the 
state  treasurer  he  was  informed  that  the  appropriation  which 
has  been  made  for  this  Convention  would  be  exhausted  on 
Saturday.  I  saw  'the  state  treasurer  and  he  gave  me  the  fol- 
lowing note,  which  is  submitted  to  the  Convention: 

CONCORD,  N.  II.,  December  10,  1902. 

HON.   FRANK   S.    STREETER,   President   Constitutional 
Convention. 

Dear  Sir:  At  your  request  I  have  examined  the  financial 
records  of  the  last  two  conventions  (1877  and  1889)  and  esti- 
mated the  expenses  of  the  present  Convention,  and  in  my 
judgment  the  appropriation  available  for  the  expenses  of  the 
present  Convention  will  be  exhausted  with  the  close  of  Satur- 
day's session,  13th  inst.  Yours  very  respectfully, 

SOLON  A.  CARTER,  Treasurer. 

I  ought,  perhaps,  to  say  in  addition  that  the  treasurer  in- 
formed me  that  probably  there  would  have  to  be  some  further 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  391 

legislative  appropriation  for  the  expenses  up  to  Saturday 
night.  The  Finance  Committee  have  had  a  meeting,  and  the 
chairman  is  ready  to  make  a  brief  report,  and  with  unanimous 
consent  of  the  Convention  the  report  may  now  be  made. 

Mr.  Clement  of  Manchester,  Chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Finance — I  rise  with  reluctance  to  say  or  do  anything  that 
will  stop  the  flow  of  eloquence  we  have  listened  to  so  long, 
but  I  have  some  figures  here  which  I  will  read  to  you,  giving 
you  the  totals  now,  and  later,  if  you  request  the  details,  the 
Committee  on  Finance  are  prepared  to  give  them. 

If  we  should  remain  in  session  until  Saturday,  the  esti- 
mated mileage  would  be  $4,900,  and  the  salaries  of  the  mem- 
bers would  be  $14,700,  and  the  other  expenses  pertaining  to 
the  Convention  and  reckoning  them  on  the  same  basis  as  the 
last  two  conventions  would  be  $5,000.  The  three  items  added 
make  $24,600.  The  appropriation  for  this  Convention  was 
$25,000,  and  so  there  would  be  left  over  on  Saturday  night 
$400. 

I  hope  we  shall  hear  from  the  attorney-general  as  to  how 
far  we  are  justified  in  extending  our  sessions  into  another 
week. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention:  We  have  present  a  large  nimiber  of  lawyers 
and  gentlemen  whose  opinion  on  a  question  of  this  sort  is  cer- 
tainly as  good,  if  not  better,  than  my  own.  Instead  of  giving 
my  opinion  as  to  whether  we  can  legally  or  illegally  remain 
here,  I  desire  to  get  the  sense  of  the  Convention  as  to  whether 
it  would  be  better  to  close  the  Convention  this  week  or  to  stay 
longer.  Personally,  I  should  be  sorry  to  ask  for  an  appro- 
priation beyond  what  the  legislature  saw  fit  to  give  for  the 
purposes  of  this  Convention,  and  I  hope  all  possible  means 
will  be  resorted  to  in  order  to  complete  the  business  of  the 
Convention  this  week. 

In  view  of  the  situation  before  us,  I  want  to  suggest  that  we 
pass  a  vote  this  morning  to  close  the  debate  upon  the  question 


392    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

now  before  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  to-day  noon  instead 
of  to-morrow  noon,  as  the  vote  had  stood  prior  to  this  morn- 
ing. As  yon  all  know,  we  might  discuss  this  question  this  af- 
ternoon, and  then  we  might  take  a  vote  provided  that  the 
vote  which  has  already  passed  to  act  upon  this  question  to- 
morrow noon  could  be  reconsidered.  I  think  it  is  worth  while 
for  the  Convention  to  consider  that  proposition — whether  or 
not  it  is  best  to  go  on  and  discuss  this  question  this  afternoon, 
and  at  the  close  of  the  discussion  to-day  take  a  vote  on  the 
questions  submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Chandler,  instead  of  postponing  those  questions  until  to-mor- 
row. You  know  that  this  action  would  not  conclude  anybody. 
You  would  all  have  a  chance  to  be  heard  again,  and  I  think  it 
will  facilitate  the  business  by  putting  this  matter  into  the 
hands  of  a  special  committee. 

For  the  purpose  of  taking  the  sense  of  the  Convention  upon 
this  subject — I  voted  with  the  majority  to-day  to  take  action 
to-morrow  noon — I  move  that  the  vote  passed  this  forenoon 
whereby  the  Convention  voted  to  consider  the  proposition 
submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  be 
reconsidered. 

I  think  it  is  important  that  we  make  progress.  Not  that  we 
want  to  go  away  and  neglect  the  business  because  the  appro- 
priation is  exhausted,  but  it  seems  to  me  we  have  been  here 
long  enough  and  we  ought  to  make  progress.  I  therefore 
make  this  motion  to  take  the  sense  of  the  Convention,  not 
that  I  have  any  particular  designs  to  carry  out. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — The  member  of  the  Committee 
on  Finance  who  reported  the  condition  of  the  appropriation 
said  something  about  checking  the  flow  of  eloquence.  This 
morning  the  Convention  almost  unanimously,  perhaps  unan- 
imously, voted  to  postpone  the  taking  of  the  vote  on  the  ques- 
tions of  apportionment  from  twelve  o'clock  to-day  until  twelve 
o'clock  to-morrow.  I  found  no  fault  with  that,  because  I 
think  this  Convention  came  here  not  to  earn  $3  a  day,  but  to 
do  the  business  of  the  state  and  to  discuss  the  questions  which 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  398 

may  be  presented  for  consideration.  I  think,  Mr.  President 
and  gentlemen  of  the  committee,  that  we  should  stay  here 
now,  money  or  no  money,  until  we  do  that  business. 

I  think  that  the  President  of  this  Convention  rightly  and 
properly  called  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  finan- 
cial situation.  It  was,  perhaps,  his  duty  to  do  so.  He  had  no 
right,  perhaps,  to  assume  that  we  did  not  care  so  much  about 
the  $3  a  day  as  to  come  here  next  week  and  spend  three  or 
four  days  and  finish  up  the  work  of  this  Convention  whether 
we  receive  our  money  or  not.  But,  Mr.  President,  if  this 
statement  and  report  of  the  committee  have  any  significance 
at  all,  it  is  upon  the  question  whether  we  will  go  away  Friday 
or  Saturday  because  we  shall  not  get  any  more  money  for 
coming  back  next  week,  or  whether  we  shall  come  back  and  do 
our  work  even  if  the  $25,000  is  already  in  our  pockets  and  no 
one  can  give  us  any  more. 

Undoubtedly  no  more  money  can  be  paid  out  by  the  state 
treasurer  than  $25,000.  The  appropriation  of  March  22d 
reads  as  follows: 

''That  a  sum  not  exceeding  $25,000,  be  and  is  hereby  appro- 
priated to  pay  the  expenses  of  a  Convention  to  revise  the  Con- 
stitution; and  the  governor  is  authorized  to  draw  his  warrant 
for  so  much  of  said  sum  as  may  be  necessary  for  that  pur- 
pose." 

It  is  unnecessary  to  repeat  that  no  more  money  can  be  ob- 
tained at  this  time  from  the  state  treasurer  than  $25,000,  but 
it  is  also  true  that  the  law  of  March  21,  1901,  which  provided 
for  this  Convention,  says  that  the  Convention  shall  proceed  to 
organize,  and  may  establish  rules  of  proceeding,  "and,  when 
organized,  shall  proceed  to  revise  the  Constitution."  It  does 
not  say  proceed  to  revise  the  Constitution  as  long  as  the 
money  lasts,  but  it  says,  "proceed  to  revise  the  Constitution." 
The  next  section  reads  as  follows: 

"SECT.  7.  If  any  alterations  or  amendments  of  the  Consti- 
tution shall  be  agreed  to  by  said  Convention,  they  shall  be  so 
arranged  and  prepared  that  the  same  can  be  voted  on  by  the 
people  separately,  unless  the  Convention  shall  be  of  the  opin- 


394    JOURNAL  OP  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ion  that  it  is  impracticable  so  to  prepare  and  arrange  them,  in 
which  case  the  amendments  shall  be  voted  on  together;  and  in. 
either  case  the  Convention  shall  prescribe  the  mode  of  publi- 
cation of  the  amendments,  the  time  and  manner  in  which  the 
same  shall  be  submitted  to  the  people  for  their  approval,  and 
may  pass  an  ordinance  in  relation  to  the  manner  of  ascertain- 
ing their  decision  and  declaring  and  publishing  the  same,  the 
time  when  such  amendments  as  shall  be  approved  shall  take 
effect,  and  may  do  any  and  all  other  things  which  they  deem 
necessary  to  carry  out  the  purpose  and  object  of  such  Conven- 
tion." 

Now,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen,  if  the  work  of  the  state 
requires  us  to  come  here  next  week  we  had  better  come.  If  we 
do  come  the  state  owes  us  $3  a  day,  and  we  ought  to  be  will- 
ing, in  order  to  do  the  state's  work,  to  trust  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  for  that  small  amount. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester — I  would  like,  if  in  order,  to  in- 
quire of  the  attorney-general  the  status  of  the  appropriations 
for  former  conventions.  I  was  one  of  the  Finance  Committee 
in  1889,  and  at  that  session  the  committee  found  that  the 
amount  of  money  from  the  appropriation  for  the  Convention 
of  1876  which  remained  unused  was  $1,701.65,  and  that 
amount  had  not  been  covered  into  the  treasury.  The  Conven- 
tion of  1889  had  an  unexpended  balance  of  $7,334.01.  Now 
if  that  never  has  been  covered  into  the  treasury,  as  I  under- 
stood the  treasurer  at  that  time  that  it  had  not  been,  does  not 
that,  stand  to  the  credit  of  this  Constitutional  Convention,  not 
having  been  expended  by  the  previous  Convention?  I  would 
like  to  have  the  attorney-general  give  us  his  opinion  with 
reference  to  the  status  of  that  unexpended  appropriation. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter — I  am  not  prepared  to  answer  the 
question  until  I  have  looked  at  the  records  and  have  seen  what 
was  done  at  that  time.  I  should  think  probably  that  by  this 
time  the  money  had  been  covered  into  the  treasury.  We 
have  a  treasurer  that  looks  after  the  finances  of  the  state,  and 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  395 

I  don't  believe  that  there  is  that  amount  of  money  lying 
around  which  has  not  been  covered  into  the  general  funds. 
Even  if  it  is  not  there,  I  should  doubt  about  our  having  the 
right  to  take  it  to  carry  on  the  proceedings  of  this  Conven- 
tion. 

I  am  of  the  same  opinion  as  that  expressed  by  the  distin- 
guished gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler.  We  have 
important  matters  before  us,  my  credit  is  fair  at  the  hotel,  so 
I  think  I  could  manage  to  exist  through  next  week  even  if  we 
were  not  paid.  As  I  said  at  the  outset,  I  do  not  have  any  de- 
signs to  further  in  making  the  motion  that  I  did,  but  I  made 
it  in  order  to  get  at  the  sense  of  the  Convention.  I  didn't 
know  but  a  vote  taken  on  the  questions  before  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  this  afternoon  would  facilitate  the  business  a 
little  more,  and  the  matter  could  then  be  sent  to  the  appro- 
priate special  committee,  and  we  would  have  so  much  accom- 
plished. The  motion  was  not  made  for  the  purpose  of  pre- 
venting any  one  from  remaining  here  next  week  and  protract- 
ing the  session  of  this  Convention  as  long  as  it  is  thought 
necessary. 

Mr.  Chandler,  of  Concord — I  do  not  want  any  unfounded 
financial  expectations  to  be  raised  by  the  suggestion  made  by 
the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Gilmore,  with  reference 
to  this  unexpended  balance  of  former  conventions.  It  is  en- 
tirely clear  to  my  mind  that  the  balance  that  may  have  been 
unfortunately  left  over  by  other  conventions  is  not  available 
here,  so  we  shall  have  to  trust  to  the  state. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Hillsborough — I  hope  the  motion  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Exeter  will  prevail.  We  have  been  here  a  good 
part  of  the  time  supposed  to  be  allotted  to  this  Convention, 
and  have  listened  to  a  good  many  speeches  excellent  and  elo- 
quent. We  all  ought  to  be  now  equipped  and  ready  to  act 
upon  some  features  of  this  question  under  consideration,  and 
ought  to  vote  upon  them  to-day,  it  seems  to  me,  and  get 
through.  I  do  not  see  why  we  should  occupy  any  more  than 


396    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

this  week  to  finish  up  the  business  of  this  Convention.    I  hope 
the  motion  will  prevail. 

Mr.  S.  W.  Emery  of  Portsmouth — I  would  say  that  the 
committee  made  this  report  so  that  if  it  were  possible  to  ex- 
pedite the  business,  the  Convention  could  do  so. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — The  question  to  my  mind,  is 
whether  it  is  fair  to  those  members  who,,  are  unavoidably  ab- 
sent at  this  time,  and  who  have  relied  upon  our  vote  to  take 
this  matter  up  to-morrow  at  twelve  o'clock,  for  us  to  now 
attempt  to  reconsider,  and  force  the  Convention  to  vote  upon 
this  important  matter  of  apportionment  in  the  absence  of 
those  members  desirous  of  being  here  when  such  a  vote  is 
taken. 

The  question  in  regard  to  the  appropriation  holding  out  is 
one  of  small  importance  to  me,  and  should  be  to  every  member 
of  this  Convention.  We  are  here  to  perform  certain  duties  for 
the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  if  the  state 
cannot  afford  to  pay  us  for  the  work  to  be  done  next  week,  let 
us  remain  here  and  do  it  without  pay.  It  will  not  be  the  first 
time  that  many  of  us  have  worked  for  the  good  of  the  state 
without  pay.  I  believe,  as  we  have  had  the  honor  of  being 
elected  to  serve  as  members  of  this  Convention,  that  we 
should  remain  here  long  enough  to  properly  complete  the 
business  before  us,  and  trust  to  the  honor  of  the  state  to  pay 
us,  and  if  the  state  does  not  see  fit  to  do  so,  we  will  not  com- 
plain. 

I  think  that  every  member  who  is  desirous  of  being  heard 
on  this  or  any  other  important  matter  that  comes  before  the 
Convention  ought  to  have  the  opportunity  to  do  so,  and  I 
hope  we  shall  not  hurry  our  deliberations  on  any  question  that 
is  before  us.  For  one,  I  am  willing  to  remain  here  long 
enough  to  consider  fairly  all  questions  as  they  arise  whether 
we  get  pay  for  our  time  or  not,  and  I  would  like  to  have  the 
sense  of  this  body  taken  at  this  time,  for  the  purpose  of  ascer- 
taining the  number  of  members  who  will  leave  the  Convention 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  397 

unless  their  pay  is  guaranteed.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a 
member  who  will  say  that  he  is  not  willing  to  come  back  here 
next  week  and  close  up  the  business,  without  pay,,  if  necessary, 
but,  if  there  is  such  a  member,  I  would  like  to  have  him  arise 
at  this  time  and  so  state. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  now  well 
on  in  the  second  week  of  the  session  and  the  one  proposition, 
that  as  to  representation,  has  been  under  discussion  a  large 
part  of  the  time,  and  there  are  over  eighty  propositions  pend- 
ing before  this  Convention.  I  rise  to  ask  if  the  gentleman 
from  Exeter,  Mr.  Eastman,  will  not  so  far  limit  or  qualify  his 
motion  as  to  make  it  apply  simply  to  the  general  question 
whether  the  Convention  shall  adopt  a  district  system  or  a 
town  system. 

The  debate  thus  far  has  proceeded  on  general  lines,  part  of 
it  relating  to  one  phase  of  the  question  and  part  to  another. 
I  think  it  ought  first  to  be  determined  which  plan  is  to  be  ac- 
cepted, and  then  we  can  devote  this  evening,  if  necessary,  and 
to-morrow,  to  the  question  of  perfecting  whichever  plan  is 
adopted.  I  will  ask  the  gentleman  from  Exeter  whether  he 
will  so  far  qualify  his  motion  as  to  limit  it  as  suggested. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter — I  will.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned 
personally  I  have  no  objection  to  that  amendment. 

Mr.  Aldrich — Is  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford, 
content  ? 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  will  answer  the  gentleman  from 
Littleton  in  this  way.  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  there  should 
be  a  limit  to  debate  at  any  time  this  afternoon  or  this  evening, 
but  I  think  in  justice  to  the  gentlemen  who  are  absent  and 
who  expect  to  vote  on  this  question  at  twelve  o'clock  to-mor- 
row we  should  keep  faith  with  those  gentlemen  and  not  vote 
on  any  of  these  questions  in  their  absence.  The  debate  can  be 
limited  at  any  time  and  yet  the  vote  taken  to-morrow  at  the 
time  set. 


398    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — Then  your  proposition  is  that 
the  debate  shall  be  limited  and  the  vote  on  the  question  of 
apportionment  taken  to-morrow  at  twelve. 

I  am,  then,  in  favor  of  the  suggestion  of  the  distinguished 
gentleman  from  Hillsborough,  Mr.  Smith.  If  we  do  that  we 
shall  find  ourselves  to-morrow  in  the  position  of  having  done 
nothing.  We  shall  go  along  until  to-morrow  on  this  general 
discussion  and  shall  find  ourselves  on  Thursday  deciding  the 
question  whether  it  shall  be  a  town  or  a  district  plan,  and 
what  number  the  house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of,  and 
the  entire  question  as  to  how  it  shall  be  worked  out  will  have 
to  be  gone  over  again.  We  are  here,  gentlemen,  first,  charged 
with  the  duty  of  reducing  the  house  of  representatives.  We 
ought  not  to  go  away,  as  some  have  suggested,  doing  nothing 
in  this  respect.  Something  should  be  done  to  reduce  the 
house.  Four  years  from  now  this  hall  will  not  hold  the  mem- 
bers with  the  probable  increase.  The  legislature  will  have  to 
hold  its  session  in  the  state  house  yard  or  some  larger  place. 
The  state  of  New  Hampshire  should  not  be  left  in  the  situa- 
tion of  the  government  official  who  brought  in  a  prisoner  out 
in  one  of  the  territories,  charged  with  violating  the  liquor 
laws,  and  telegraphed  the  department  of  justice  at  Washing- 
ton, saying,  "We  have  a  prisoner  five  feet  tall  and  four  feet 
and  seven  inches  wide.  The  door  to  the  court  house  is  only 
four  feet  wide.  Shall  we  make  the  door  wider,  or  hold  court 
out  doors?"  and  the  answer  came  back,  "You  better  hold 
court  out  doors." 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — I  am  as  desirous  as  any  one  of  ex- 
pediting the  business  of  this  Convention  and  getting  through 
as  early  as  possible.  If  we  had  taken  a  vote  at  twelve  o'clock 
this  morning,  as  it  was  at  first  understood  we  should,  it  would 
have  been  agreeable  to  me;  but  in  a  formal  and  deliberate 
manner  that  time  was  postponed  twenty-four  hours,  and  mem- 
bers have  undoubtedly  gone  away,  expecting  the  vote  to  be 
taken  at  twelve  o'clock  to-morrow.  Now  the  question  whether 
we  have  a  town  or  a  district  system  is  all  there  is  to  it.  I  do 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  399 

not  care  how  long  we  discuss  this  matter,  or  whether  debate 
is  limited  or  not,  but  I  think  it  would  be  manifest  injustice — 
not  intentional,  of  course — but  very  unjust  to  take  a  vote 
to-day  when  it  is  expected  by  many  who  are  not  here  that  it 
will  be  at  twelve  to-morrow.  I  do  not  know  how  many  are 
absent,  but  there  are  many  vacant  seats  in  this  house.  This 
debate  has  continued  all  this  time  with  the  idea  of  giving 
everybody  the  fullest  opportunity  to  be  heard  and  of  giving 
everybody  an  opportunity  to  record  his  vote  on  this  vital  ques- 
tion. I  trust  that  a  vote  will  not  be  taken  upon  this  to-day. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — The  situation  is  evidently  one  which 
demands  our  attention,  and  it  demands  our  action  in  a  way 
which  shall  not  disappoint  our  constituents,  or  do  injustice 
to  ourselves.  We  were  elected  to  this  Convention,  I  appre- 
hend, for  a  specific  purpose,  and  that  specific  purpose  is  the 
revision  of  the  Constitution.  It  cannot  be  regarded  as  doing 
our  duty  if  we  run  away  and  leave  half  of  the  matters  brought 
before  this  Convention  unattended  to,  whether  the  appropria- 
tion is  absorbed  or  not.  It  seems  to  me  to  be  our  duty  to  re- 
main here  in  some  form  or  shape  until  we  get  through  the 
business  of  the  Convention,  and  for  one,  I  will  never  vote  to 
adjourn  sine  die  unless  some  action  has  been  taken  on  these 
various  propositions,  whether  we  get  our  pay  or  not.  That  is 
a  matter  which  ought  to  be  of  supreme  indifference  to  nine- 
tenths  of  us,  and  I  presume  is.  I  am  as  desirous  of  getting 
away  from  this  Convention  as  any  man  in  this  body,  but  I  am 
not  desirous  of  getting  away  without  performing  the  duty  for 
which  we  were  sent  here. 

There  is  a  suggestion  I  would  like  to  make  but  not  for  any 
immediate  action  upon  it.  I  think  it  is  the  experience  of  most 
of  the  members  of  the  Convention,  as  matters  have  come  up 
for  consideration,  and  as  the  several  proposed  amendments 
have  been  offered,  that  we  have  found  that  the  Constitution 
we  all  love  is  one  of  considerable  age,  and  that  there  are  quite 
a  number  of  its  sections  not  absolutely  obsolete,  but  contain- 
ing expressions  that  are  obsolete,  and  which  might  wisely  be 


400     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

changed  by  this  Convention.  I  believe,  as  an  individual  mem- 
ber of  this  Convention,  that  it  would  be  wise  for  us  to  take  a 
recess  to-morrow,  having  first  appointed  a  committee  for  the 
revision  of  the  entire  Constitution  with  instructions  to  that 
committee  to  report  to  us  at  some  time  in  April  or  May,  to 
which  we  may  adjourn.  I  believe  we  would  do  more  good  to 
the  state  and  accomplish  more  in  that  way  than  in  any  other. 
But  whether  or  not  that  proposition  may  meet  with  the  ap- 
proval of  any  considerable  portion  of  this  Convention  is  now 
perhaps  immaterial . 

I  agree  entirely  with  the  gentleman  from  Lancaster,  Mr. 
Kent,  and  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  that  no 
vote  should  be  taken  to-day.  We  can  close  debate  now,  if  we 
please,  and  go  on  to  other  business,  but  let  us  keep  our  agree- 
ments. I  was  in  favor  of  voting  at  110011  to-day,  but  I  under- 
stood that  it  was  intended  that  every  member  of  the  Conven- 
tion should  have  the  opportunity  of  expressing  himself  upon 
the  subject  under  consideration,  and  so  I  did  not  insist  upon 
my  motion.  It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  President,  whether  or  not 
we  consider  this  question  any  further  we  ought  at  least  to  keep 
faith  with  those  that  have  gone  away  with  the  understanding 
that  they  can  vote  to-morrow  at  noon. 

The  question  being  stated,  Shall  the  vote  of  the  Convention 
at  the  morning  session  fixing  the  time  of  voting  under  Mr. 
Chandler's  order  at  twelve  o'clock  Thursday,  be  re-considered  ? 
the  motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  viva  voce  vote. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter,  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  for  the  purpose  of 
further  considering  the  resolutions  relating  to  representation. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Little  of  Manchester  in  the  chair. 

Mr.  Dudley  of  Concord— I  beg  the  indulgence  of  the  com- 
mittee for  a  moment  to  make  a  few  remarks  on  the  matter 
under  consideration. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  401 

I  have  heard  a  good  deal  said  about  sentiment  and  princi- 
ples of  equality  here  in  this  meeting.  It  has  occurred  to  me 
whether  there  has  been  any  real  meaning  in  the  appeals  that 
have  been  made  here  to  the  sense  of  equality  in  representa- 
tion. I  came  here  without  any  preconceived  ideas  in  regard 
to  what  to  do  or  how  to  vote  on  this  question,  and  I  have  lis- 
tened carefully  and  considerately  to  all  that  has  been  said, 
and  have  tried  to  arrive  at  some  conclusions  myself. 

Now,  gentlemen,  have  you  considered  what  the  district  sys- 
tem means?  It  means  this:  that  if  the  district  system 
pure  and  simple  is  adopted  you  have  got  to  go  into 
every  town  and  ward  and  carve  them  up  so  that 
each  district  shall  contain  the  requisite  number  to 
send  one  or  more  representatives.  Going  into  Ward! 
One,  Concord,  where  I  live,  for- instance,  if  you  fix  your  dis- 
tricts according  to  the  ideas  of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin, 
Mr.  Leach,  at  1,370  inhabitants,  you  would  carve  a  district 
out  of  Ward  One  containing  1,370  inhabitants  and  would 
have  left  about  550  that  would  not  be  included  in  the  district. 
I  want  you  to  consider  the  effect  of  that.  You  have  carved 
up  this  one  ward  and  have  gotten  a  district  of  the  required 
size  from  it,  but  in  order  to  preserve  equality  of  representa- 
tion under  your  district  system,  you  have  got  to  put  the  bal- 
ance of  the  inhabitants  over  into  another  ward  and  from  that 
union  carve  out  another  district  and  in  that  way  you  have  got 
to  go  through  the  towns  and  wards  of  the  state. 

Under  your  district  system,  to  preserve  this  equality,  you 
have  got  to  have  your  districts  about  equal  in  number  of  pop- 
ulation, or  multiples  of  a  certain  number,  and,  as  the  popu- 
lation of  the  wards  and  towns  are  to-day,  you  will  find  that 
none  of  them  will  answer  the  requirements  and  you  will  have 
to  revise  and  carve  up  anew  the  towns  and  wards  to  readjust 
them  to  the  district  system. 

I  have  lived  in  Ward  One  of  Concord  some  twenty  years,. 

and  nearly  ten  years  of  that  time  we  were  within  a  very  few  of 

the  requisite  number  to  have  two  representatives,  but  we  had 

only  one.     We  existed  during  that  time  under  those  condi- 

26 


402    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

tions,  and  I  never  found  out  how  miserable  the  situation  was 
until  I  came  down  here  to  this  Convention  and  heard  it  de- 
bated by  these  speakers  who  have  addressed  you.  We  cer- 
tainly existed  under  that  system.  Under  the  last  census 
we  came  up  to  the  requisite  number  for  two  representatives, 
but  whatever  you  gentlemen  do  here  we  shall  lose  one  repre- 
sentative in  that  ward.  We  expect  to,  and  I  do  not  think  the 
delegates  from  that  ward  will  be  murdered  when  they  get 
home  if  one  of  the  representatives  is  lost. 

This  question  of  equality — what  is  it?  It  is  only  compara- 
tive equality  wherever  you  go.  Take  the  congressional  dis- 
tricts all  over  the  country — and  there  is  no  equality  in  them 
except  comparative  equality — and  they  are  changing  all  the 
time  as  one  district  increases  and  another  decreases. 

How  is  it  that  the  present  system  has  existed  so  long?  How 
is  it  that  it  has  stood  in  this  Constitution  and  stood  here  in 
this  state  ever  since  the  state  was  a  state?  It  has  simply  stood 
here  because  the  people  of  the  state  have  voted  to  have  it. 
Why  have  they  voted  for  it?  Because  we  have  considered  it 
the  best  system  that  could  be  devised.  Why  is  it  that  a  town  of 
600  inhabitants  should  have  the  same  number  of  representa- 
tives as  a  town  of  1,800,  or  rather  1,799?  Why  is  it  that  a 
town  of  600  inhabitants  should  have  one  representative  and  it 
takes  a  town  of  1,800  to  have  another  representative?  It  is 
because  the  people  of  Concord,  of  Manchester,  of  Dover,  of 
Portsmouth,  and  of  Exeter,  and  of  all  those  large  towns  have 
said  to  the  people  of  the  small  towns,  "We  want  you  repre- 
sented here.  We  want  you  to  come  down  into  the  councils  of 
our  state  and  he  heard.  If  the  representation  is  put  at  a 
larger  number  you  cannot  be  heard,  and  therefore  we  will 
keep  it  as  it  is.  Come  down  and  consult  with  us."  Not  only 
that,  but  they  have  gone  into  the  back  towns  and  the  small 
towns  of  the  state  and  have  picked  out  governors,  and  council* 
ors,  and  representatives  of  congress,  and  perhaps  senators.  Is 
there  any  inequality  in  that?  Is  there  any  question  of  in- 
equality or  equality.  Has  not  this  system  stood  because  this 
question  of  opposite  interests  of  the  cities  as  against  the  towns 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  403 

has  never  been  considered?  I  was  surprised  to  hear  it  brought 
up  in  this  body  as  it  has  been  in  this  discussion.  The  present 
system  has  not  existed  so  long  because  itrwas  thought  to  be 
exactly  on  the  basis  of  equality,  but  because  the  larger  towns 
and  cities  have  voted  that  it  should  be  so. 

If  the  basis  of  representation  is  made  on  the  basis  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  at  600  for  the 
first  representative  and  an  increase  of  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative,  where  are  you  then?  Are  you  losing 
your  power?  Take  the  towns  in  this  state  of  over  600  inhab- 
itants and  look  them  over,  and  you  can  see  if  at  any  time  they 
feel  they  are  unequally  represented  or  are  being  deprived 
of  their  rights  whenever  a  Constitutional  Convention  is  called 
— and  they  can  vote  to  call  one — they  can  come  down  to  this 
Convention,  and  these  towns  that  have  a  surplus  population 
over  600  are  enough  to  carry  any  question  through  that 
might  be  submitted. 

This  is  the  way  that  I  have  been  looking  at  this  question 
here  to-day.  The  cities  and  towns  have  not  said  that  the  pres- 
ent system  is  on  the  basis  of  absolute  equality,  but  they  have 
said,  "Come  down  here  and  consult  with  us;  sit  in  our  coun- 
cils of  state  and  it  will  have  a  beneficial  effect  on  the  small 
towns  and  the  large  towns  and  cities  alike."  There  has  been 
no  question  of  the  opposite  interests  of  cities  and  towns  in 
the  present  system. 

I  was  a  good  deal  surprised  this  fall  when  I  was  looking 
around  to  see  who  were  voters  in  our  ward.  I  went  down  to  a 
factory  and  said  to  the  superintendent,  "Whom  have  you  for 
voters?"  It  was  a  large  factory,  and  I  expected  that  there 
would  be  many  voters  employed  there;  but  the  superintend- 
ent said,  "There  are  not  more  than  three  or  four  in  my  whole 
mill."  How  was  that?  Most  of  them  were  women,  and  chil- 
dren, and  girls.  I  supposed  there  were  thirty  or  forty  voters 
there  until  I  investigated.  That  is  a  little  illustration  of  the 
condition  of  things  that  exist  in  many  of  our  cities.  You  can 
bear  that  in  mind  when  you  are  thinking  on  this  problem  of 
absolute  equality  with  reference  to  representation.  In  cities, 


404     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

women,  girls,  and  boys  are  doing  a  large  part  of  the  work.  In 
that  mill  there  were  some  two  hundred  inhabitants,  and  upon 
that  number  our  representation  in  that  ward  was  increased; 
but  among  them  there  were  only  three  or  four  voters.  That 
was  the  condition  there,  and  it  does  not  apply,  I  imagine,  so 
much  to  Concord  as  it  does  to  such  cities  as  Manchester.  In 
other  words,  the  basis  of  representation  in  our  cities,  and  es- 
pecially in  our  manufacturing  cities,  is  based  upon  a  large 
number  of  inhabitants  who  are  not  voters. 

There  is  another  thing  to  bear  in  mind  when  you  talk  about 
sentiment.  There  is  sentiment  in  some  things  that  have,  and 
should  have,  substantial  weight.  I  think  you  should  bear 
that  in  mind,  and  give  to  these  small  towns  a  share  in  the  rep- 
resentation so  most  of  them  can  come  here  and  consult  with 
us  in  the  councils  of  state,  not  because  of  absolute  equality  in 
representation,  but  because  we  need  them.  Let  us  say  to- 
them,  "Continue  to  send  such  men  as  you  have  given  us  in 
the  past  for  representatives,  for  governors,  for  councilors, 
and  such  men  as  you  send  us  here  to  this  Convention,"  and 
I  think,  gentlemen,  you  will  make  no  mistake. 

Mr.  Shaw  of  Kensington — It  seems  to  be  the  sentiment  of 
this  house  that  the  house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of 
300  members,  and  I  think  that  would  be  a  fair  thing. 

I  represent  a  town  of  less  than  600  inhabitants.  We  had, 
during  the  War  of  the  Revolution,  850  inhabitants,  and  at 
the  first  census  that  was  taken  about  800.  In  1850  we  had 
700,  and  now  we  have  less  than  600  and  are  pro-rated.  I  am 
willing  to  vote  that  we  shall  raise  the  number  necessary  for 
one  representative  to  800,  and  that  the  smaller  towns  shall  be 
pro-rated,  or,  if  they  choose,  shall  be  classed  together  to  send 
a  representative  to  the  legislature.  I  think  that  that  would 
be  fair.  The  present  system  gives  a  population  of  600  for  one 
representative  and  1,200  more  for  each  additional  representa- 
tive, and  our  friends  from  the  larger  places  do  not  want  this 
proportion  made  any  worse.  I  am  willing  to  gratify  them, 
and  if  we  can  get  a  bill  through  here  that  will  keep  the  pro- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  405 

portion  as  it  is,  and  will  allow  those  towns  to  be  classed  to- 
gether which  wish  to  be  so  classed,  I  am  willing  to  do  that. 

There  is  another  thing  that  I  want  to  speak  about,  and  that 
is  the  number  of  amendments  that  we  shall  submit  to  the 
people.  I  believe  that  we  want  to  adopt  a  few  measures  and 
then  go  home,  and  the  people  can  see  that  we  have  done  some- 
thing. You  have  already  been  told  how  way  back  in  1850  the 
Constitutional  Convention  held  that  year  reported  a  large 
number  of  bills.  They  came  together  and  adopted  fifteen  pro- 
posed amendments,  and  the  whole  of  them  were  rejected. 
The  people  of  this  state  do  not  want  many  amendments  made 
to  the  Constitution.  We  have  had  amendments  offered  here, 
and  the  people  don't  want  half  of  them.  I  don't  believe  in  it. 
I  think  we  might  adopt  a  few,  and  then  we  can  go  home  and 
submit  them  to  the  people,  and  the  people  will  approve  of 
them. 

I  will  say  further  that  many  times  I  have  been  spoken  to 
by  customers  who  buy  my  milk,  and  they  would  say,  "Shaw, 
your  milk  is  half  water,"  and  I  replied,  "Yes,  it  is  three 
fourths  water;  85  per  cent,  water,  and  15  per  cent,  cream." 
Now  it  seems  to  me,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  in  all  of  this  talk  we 
have  heard  in  this  Convention  there  is  too  much  skimmed 
milk  and  too  little  cream. 

Mr.  Blanchard  of  Pittsburg — As  this  meeting  has  assumed 
somewhat  the  nature  of  an  experience  meeting,  I  want  to  give 
my  experience. 

We  have  a  population  of  687.  We  had  210  voters  at  our 
last  election.  We  have  had  the  privilege  of  sending  one  rep- 
resentative to  the  legislature  for  the  last  fourteen 
years.  Previous  to  that  we  were  classed  with  .the 
town  of  Clarksville,  which  lies  directly  to  the  south 
of  us.  We  are  bounded  on  the  north  and  west  by 
the  Dominion  of  Canada,  and  on  the  east  by  the  state  of 
Maine,  and  on  the  south  by  Clarksville.  Any  proposed  dis- 
trict system  which  would  be  adopted  would  necessitate  our 
being  classed  with  Clarksville,  and  perhaps  Stewartstown. 


406     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  .CONVENTION. 

Clarksville  has  307  inhabitants,  and  Stewartstown  a  little  over 
1,100.  The  town  of  Pittsburg  is  situated  on  the  Connecticut 
river,  and  extends  along  that  river  about  fifteen  miles.  We 
have  in  the  town  a  little  village  where  elections  are  held,  and 
it  requires  voters  in  the  remote  sections  of  the  town,  at  the 
present  time,  when  coming  to  the  elections,  to  travel  twelve 
or  fifteen  miles,  and  if  we  were  classed  with  Clarksville  it 
would  require  them  to  travel  four  miles  further  when, the  vot- 
ing was  done  in  Clarksville.  And  what  is  the  situation  of 
Pitttsburg  is  the  situation  of  a  great  many  of  the  towns  in 
the  northern  part  of  our  state.  It  makes  it  very  inconvenient 
to  our  people,  or  would  make  it  inconvenient  if  we  were 
classed  with  other  towns.  If  we  had  our  choice  we  would 
rather  lose  our  representative  a  part  of  the  time  than  to  be 
classed  with  another  town  as  we  have  been  in  the  past. 

Mr.  Drew  of  Lancaster — If  there  is  any  one  else  who  wishes 
to  speak  I  will  sit  down. 

There  is  one  matter  of  which  I  omitted  to  speak  when  I  last 
addressed  you,  and  which  I  think  requires  some  consideration. 
This  is  the  matter  of  convenience  of  voting,  in  cases  where 
towns  elect  to  class  themselves,  as  provided  in  the  Mitchell 
bill  or  resolution,  if  it  is  adopted. 

I  do  not  understand  that  the  voters  will  be  subjected  to  the- 
inconvenience  that  has  been  suggested  by  the  last  gentleman 
who  has  spoken,  because  I  understand  that,  under  our  present 
system  of  voting,  the  candidates  for  representatives  named  in 
the  classed  towns  would  be  upon  the  tickets  in  each  town  in 
the  class,  so  that  each  voter  would  vote  in  his  usual  voting 
place.  The  classed  towns  would  not  need  to  have  a  district 
meeting  such  as  they  used  to  have  under  the  old  class  system. 
This  is  a  matter  worthy  of  consideration,  and  one  which  might 
determine  the  minds  of  many  in  favor  of  or  against  this  prop- 
osition. 

Having  the  Australian  ballot,  with  tickets  bearing  the 
names  of  all  the  candidates,  including  the  name  of  the  candi- 
date for  representative,  in  the  classed  towns,  the  voter  would 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  407 

be  put  to  no  more  inconvenience  than  he  is  put  to  under  our 
present  system. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton — The  gentleman  from  Nashua  asked 
the  question  in  a  tentative  manner,  whether  the  back  towns, 
or  rural  towns,  were  going  backward.  I  have  been  all  over  the 
state  this  fall  together  with  the  other  members  of  the  state 
board  of  equalization,  and  have  had  reports  of  all  the  towns 
in  the  state.  The  unanimous  report  from  all  of  the  rural 
towns,  so-called,  is  that  they  are  going  back.  The  selectmen 
have  been  before  us,  and  the  county  commissioners  have  been 
before  us,  and  they  have  asked  to  have  their  assessments  re- 
duced because,  as  they  said,  the  valuation  and  population  were 
decreasing,  and  we  have  very  generally  reduced  the  valuation 
in  every  country  town.  They  say  the  valuation  should  be  put 
on  to  the  cities  and  larger  towns  because  they  are  growing. 
They  also  ask  the  legislature  to  make  appropriations  for 
schools,  highways,  and  general  public  purposes  from  which 
they  receive  benefit.  It  seems  to  me  it  should  be  a  question 
with  them  where  those  taxes  are  coming  from. 

It  has  been  conceded  here,  I  think,  that  there  is  no  equality 
in  this  state  under  our  present  Constitution,  so  far  as  repre- 
sentation is  concerned.  We  have  been  talking  about  every- 
body being  born  free  and  equal,  but  that  is  speaking  of 
ancient  times,  because  it  is  conceded  by  myself  and  other 
countrymen  that  each  one  of  us  is  better  than  four  or  five 
living  in  the  cities,  and  we  ask  to  have  a  larger  representation 
because  we  are  better.  We  also  ask  to  have  the  cities  raise  the 
money  for  our  schools  and  other  appropriations  because  we 
ourselves  have  not  the  money. 

Under  the  apportionment  bill  to  be  presented  to  the  legis- 
lature at  its  next  session,  it  will  appear  that  the  valuation  of 
New  Hampshire  for  the  purposes  of  raising  taxes  is  over 
$285,000,000.  Eleven  cities  of  the  state  have  a  valuation  of 
$138,000,000,  and  they  pay  $482  of  every  thousand  of  the 
state  taxes.  In  other  words,  they  have  forty-eight  per  cent,  of 
the  valuation  of  the  state,  and  they  pay  forty-eight  per  cent. 


408     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

of  the  public  taxes  of  the  state.  These  same  cities  have  forty- 
one  per  cent,  of  the  population  of  the  state;  they  have  thirty- 
seven  per  cent,  now  of  its  representatives. 

Referring  to  the  city  of  Manchester  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing some  comparisons:  I  find  the  valuation  of  Manchester  is 
a  little  rising  $45,000,000,  and  she  has  a  population  of  57,000, 
in  round  numbers,  and  a  representation  in  the  house  of  49. 
Taking  the  four  counties  of  Belknap,  Carroll,  Sullivan,  and 
Coos,  the  combined  valuation  of  these  counties  is  $48,000,000, 
with  a  population  of  84,000,  and  a  representation  of  86  as 
against  49  for  Manchester — the  valuation  being  practically 
the  same.  The  three  counties  of  Carroll,  Grafton,  and  Coos 
have  a  valuation  of  nearly  $49,000,000,  a  representation  of  89, 
and  a  poulation  of  about  87,000.  The  two  counties  of  Ches- 
hire and  Grafton  have  a  valuation  of  $30,000  less  than  Man- 
chester, and  they  have  a  representation  of  74  in  the  house, 
their  population  being  72,165. 

It  is  admitted  here  that  the  population  of  Manchester  and 
these  other  cities  is  made  up  of  foreigners.  Instead  of  smell- 
ing of  the  barn-yard  they  smell  of  grease,  and  they  are  not  as 
good  a  class  of  people  for  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  as  we 
people  who  live  in  the  rural  communities.  But  they  have  a 
larger  wealth  per  capita,  and  if  we  take  them  according  to  the 
amount  of  money  they  are  able  to  accumulate  they  would  cer- 
tainly seem  to  have  the  advantage.  The  valuation  of  Man- 
chester, as  I  have  said^  is  $45,000,000,  with  a  population  of 
57,  000,  while  the  valuation  of  the  first  four  counties  I  named 
is  only  $48,000,000  with  a  population  of  83,000,  and  dividing 
the  valuation  among  the  population  in  each  case  you  will  see 
that  the  valuation  per  capita  in  Manchester  is  much  greater 
than  in  the  four  counties  named.  In  the  three  counties,  Car- 
roll, Grafton,  and  Coos,  the  population  is  87,000,  while  the 
valuation  is  about  $49,000,000,  as  against  the  population  of 
Manchester  of  57,000,  and  a  valuation  of  $45,000,000.  The 
valuation  of  the  two  counties  of  Cheshire  and  Grafton  is  $30,- 
000  less  than  Manchester  and  has  a  population  of  72,000  as 
against  57,000  in  Manchester.  Certainly  these  French-Cana- 
dians are  a  poor  class  of  people! 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  409 

If  these  cities  are  agreed,  as  they  seem  to  be,  to  have  this 
inequality  of  representation  go  on,  I  as  a  countryman  cannot 
object  to  it;  but  it  seems  to  me  that  we  ought  to  be  willing  to 
concede  a  little  to  them.  I  am  willing  to  concede  a  little  for 
I  want  to  bring  about  something  that  will  reduce  the  house. 
If  they  are  willing  to  give  us  600  and  take  two  or  three  thou- 
sand for  the  number  necessary  for  the  second  representative, 
.-all  right  and  well,  but  if  they  object  to  this  and  say  that  their 
representation  is  at  present  as  low  in  comparison  as  that  of 
the  country  towns,  or  lower,  and  they  don't  want  that  dis- 
crepancy to  be  increased,  I  am  willing  to  concede  that  to 
them. 

There  is  one  resolution  that  has  not  been  mentioned,  but 
which  it  seems  to  me  is  no  unfairer  than  any  other  that  has 
been  talked  of  here.  That  was  the  resolution  introduced  by 
the  gentleman  from  Hillsborough,  making  one  representative 
from  every  town  and  ward  in  the  state.  That  would  give  us 
289  representatives  in  the  house,  and  since  we  admit  that  we 
are  not  fair  and  are  not  going  to  be  fair,  that  proposition 
strikes  me  rather  favorably. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter — May  I  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows,  a  question?  Can  you  tell  how  much  the 
tax  paid  by  the  city  of  Manchester  to  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
. shire  amounts  to? 

Mr.  Fellows — It  will  be  $159.10  on  every  thousand. 

Mr.  Eastman — Do  you  know  how  much  money  the  city  of 
Manchester  receives  from  the  state  for  the  railroad  and  sav- 
ings bank  taxes? 

,  Mr.  Fellows — I  haven't  it  here,  but  it  is  the  same  propor- 
tion that  every  town  receives  where  that  class  of  property  is 
held,  and  savings  bank  depositors  are  scattered  everywhere 
throughout  the  state. 

Mr.  Eastman — Do  they  not  receive  enough  money  from  the 


410     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

state  treasurer  to  pay  their  whole  state  tax  and  have  some 
forty  or  fifty  thousand  dollars  over? 

Mr.  Fellows — That  is  true,  perhaps,  because  the  people  live 
there  who  have  this  class  of  property. 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — I  would  ask  the  gentleman  who 
has  given  us  these  figures  if  it  is  not  true  that  the  larger  pro- 
portion of  the  property  taxed  in  these  large  towns  and  cities 
belongs  to  people  outside  of  the  state.  As  I  understand  it,  a 
great  part  of  this  property  taxed  is  owned  by  people  outside 
of  the  state.  The  property  is  there,  I  admit,  but  do  the  people 
own  it? 

Mr.  Fellows — I  cannot  answer  that  question.  The  prop- 
erty is  there,  but  I  cannot  state  what  propSrtion  of  it  is- 
owned  by  the  citizens  of  the  state  and  what  by  others. 

Mr.  Hubbard  of  Amherst — I  would  like  to  ask  a  question 
for  information.  You  speak  of  the  country  towns  as  going 
back — going  back  in  valuation.  Haven't  you  noticed  in  your 
travels  at  the  present  time  that  towns  are  springing  into  new 
life  and  wealth  and  that  new  and  beautiful  summer  homes  are- 
springing  up  everywhere  on  these  farms? 

Mr.  Fellows — It  did  occur  to  the  board  of  equalization  that 
the  summer  visitors  were  adding  to  the  prosperity  of  the 
towns;  but  the  plea  was  made  to  us  that  they  ought  not  to  be 
taxed  because  the  people  did  not  want  to  drive  them  from  the 
state,  and  in  the  very  towns  where  they  were  going  we  were 
asked  to  make  reductions  in  valuations. 

Mr.  Hubbard — We  realize  in  my  town  (which  has  gone  back 
many  thousands  of  dollars  in  the  past  ten  years)  that  our  val- 
uation has  been  too  high,  and  this  request  for  reduction  has 
been  because  the  valuation  is  more  than  the  property  brings  at 
public  auction  in  nearly  every  case,  which  is  not  true  of  the 
cities. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  411 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — I  wish  to  make  a  statement 
that  has  perhaps  been  in  the  minds  of  all  of  you.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Drew,  this  morning  pointed  out 
the  desirable  features  of  town  representation,  and  we  all 
agreed  with  him.  I  think  that  he  advanced  in  his  eloquent 
argument  some  important  and  true  ideas.  But  this  occurs 
to  me — why,  in  this  matter  of  city  and  town  representation, 
may  we  not  be  as  democratic  as  our  national  government  ?  At 
one  time  New  Hampshire  sent  five  representatives  to  con- 
gress. She  now  sends  two.  Some  of  the  members  here  will 
not  have  to  be  so  old  as  I  am  before  we  are  cut  down  to  one.  I 
think  the  next  census  will  do.  Already  Delaware,  one  of 
the  old  original  thirteen  states,  has  but  one  representative, 
and  yet  she  has  not  population  enough  to  elect  that  one  repre- 
sentative, if  you  take  it  in  proportion  to  the  numbers  re- 
quired to  elect  one  representative  in  other  states,  such  as  New 
York,  Pennsylvania,  and  many  of  the  Western  states.  Should 
she  on  that  account  be  deprived  of  her  one  representative? 
Do  you  want  to  be  deprived  of  your  representation  in  con- 
gress? One  man  in  New  Hampshire  has  the  power  of  seven- 
teen in  the  state  of  New  York,  as  far  as  representation  in 
congress  is  concerned. 

As  has  been  remarked,  the  cities  of  this  state  do  not  suffer 
on  account  of  any  legislation  that  has  been  enacted  in  our 
legislature,  and  they  cannot  suffer,  for  they  have  control  of 
the  senate  at  all  times. 

I  merely  desired  to  call  this  matter  to  your  attention.  Un- 
doubtedly it  has  been  in  the  minds  of  many  of  you.  I  think 
none  of  us  want  to  lose  a  representative  from  New  Hamp- 
shire, but  if  you  argue  on  the  line  that  the  delegates  from  the 
cities  are  arguing  here,  with  reference  to  town  representa- 
tives, you  will  lose  your  representation  in  congress. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester — I  have  a  few  figures  here 

and  I  simply  want  to  state  them  that  they  may  go  on  record. 

I  do  not  intend  to  make  a  speech — that  would  be  impossible. 

I  think  no  Manchester  man  has  submitted  any  distinctive 

plan  for  adoption  in  this  Convention.    On  the  basis  of  what 


412     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

I  believed  to  be  right  in  the  Constitutional  Convention  of 
1876,  I  submitted  a  proposition  as  a  basis  of  representation. 
It  was  based  upon  the  votes  cast  for  governor  at  a  stated  time. 
I  think  votes  mean  something.  The  voters  are  the  men  be- 
hind the  guns,  and  they  are  the  ones  that  carry  into  effect  all 
legislation  and  all  that  pertains  to  it.  I  agree  mainly  with 
Mr.  Lyford's  bill  for  representation,  base  it  on  representation 
by  counties,  but  I  would  simply  disagree  with  him  in  that  it 
should  be  made  on  votes  for  governor,  instead  of  population. 

On  the  basis  of  300  members  for  the  legislature  by  votes, 
Buckingham  county  would  have  37  representatives;  Straff ord, 
29;  Belknap,  14;  Carroll,  12;  Merrimack,  38;  Hillsborough, 
82;  Cheshire,  23;  Sullivan,  12;  Grafton,  30,  and  Coos,  23, 
which  makes  just  300. 

The  number  of  votes  cast  would  mean  something,  and  they 
would  always  apply  alike.  It  is  a  yardstick  that  applies  to 
every  town  and  state  alike,  the  same  as  gold  is  a  commercial 
yardstick  as  a  basis  for  representing  exchange  of  commerce  in 
the  world. 

The  Barton  bill  would  give  Manchester  31  representatives 
• — a  loss  of  18.  The  census  of  1900  gives  the  population  of 
Hillsborough  county  as  112,640.  Manchester  has  56,987,  or 
1,334  more  than  the  rest  of  the  county.  Now  is  there  any 
reason  why  Manchester  should  not  have  one  half  of  the  mem- 
bers of  the  county?  That  would  be  41  under  a  representation 
•of  82  for  the  whole  county — Manchester  would  have  41,  or 
possibly  42. 

Now  how  would  it  work  under  the  Barton  bill?  I  will  take 
Goffstown  as  an  illustration  from  many  others.  Goffstown 
has  a  population  of  2,528  and  now  has  two  representatives. 
Under  the  Barton  bill  it  would  have  but  one.  Bennington 
Ms  a  population  of  667;  Greenfield,  605;  Brookline,  606; 
Hancock,  642 — an  aggregate  of  2,520,  eight  less  than  Goffs- 
town— and  they  would  have  four  representatives  while  Goffs- 
town would  have  but  one.  That  is  the  equality  you  would  get 
under  the  Barton  bill.  Goffstown  would  lose  one  representa- 
tive; Hancock  and  the  other  three  towns  one  each. 


WEDNESDAI,  DECEMBEK  10,  1902.  413 

In  the  last  legislature  100  towns  with  a  population  of  56,- 
949  had  100  representatives;  Manchester,  with  a  population 
of  56,987— more  than  the  100  towns— had  but  49.  There 
comes  again  your  equality,  100  to  49,  with  less  population. 
To  be  sure,  some  of  those  towns  were  pro-rated  towns,  and 
pro-rated  towns  will  exist  under  any  system  except  the  town 
system. 

Now  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  spoke  about 
transferring  votes  from  one  place  to  another.  My  idea  would 
be,  where  there  is  a  surplus — say,  for  instance,  in  the  city  of 
Manchester — under  any  bill  there  probably  would  be  a  large 
surplus.  Now  if  we  were  entitled  to  two  extra,  or  three,  and 
Wards  Three,  Four,  and  Five  should  .have  a  large  surplus  after 
electing  the  representatives  allotted  to  them,  then  representa- 
tives could  be  elected  at  large  throughout  the  city  to  complete 
the  equalization. 

Now,  as  I  have  said  before,  I  had  no  proposition  of  my  own 
— neither  has  any  Manchester  delegate.  Mr.  Lyford's  bill 
comes  the  nearest  to  being  right,  to  my  mind.  There  are,  of 
course,  as  I  think,  some  imperfections  in  it.  I  do  not  want 
the  legislature  to  meddle  with  anything  in  the  shape  of  al- 
lotting representation.  I  want  some  board  to  decide,  which 
is  appointed  either  by  the  superior,  or  the  supreme  court,  or 
elected  by  the  people — a  board  that  will  divide  the  counties 
equitably,  and  I  would  not  have  it  done  less  than  once  in  ten 
years,  and  then  on  the  basis  of  the  previous  governor  election. 
If  this  is  done  by  a  board  appointed  by  the  court  or  elected 
by  the  people  it  removes  from  the  legislature  the  temptation 
of  dickering.  There  is  a  temptation  to  do  almost  everything 
in  the  legislation  line  by  dickering.  As  many  of  us  know,  at 
the  first  of  the  session  the  members  will  reject  a  proposition, 
three  to  one,  but  when  they  get  into  the  whirl  of  legislation 
and  each  member  is  trying  to  get  some  bill  through,  I  have 
known  them  to  reverse  the  action  taken  at  the  first  of  the 
session  and  pass  that  very  measure  which  they  rejected  and 
pass  it  by  a  vote  of  three  to  one.  I  do  not  believe  that  they 
should  be  placed  in  such  a  position  with  reference  to  this 


414     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

matter  of  representation.  I  believe  if  it  is  possible  that  this 
board  should  be  elected  by  the  people. 

Manchester  pays  one  sixth  of  the  taxes  of  the  state,  but 
never  had  a  member  of  the  board  of  equalization.  We  are 
too  modest  down  there  altogether  and  always  have  been.  We 
abide  by  what  they  give  us  and  take  it  and  go  along.  Still 
we  manage  to  live,  or  hay£  so  far. 

I  believe  the  secretary  of  state,  the  state  treasurer,  the  in- 
surance commissioners,  the  board  of  equalization,  and  every- 
thing should  come  fresh  from  the  people  and  should  be  elect- 
ed once  in  two  years.  I  believe  the  railroad  commissioners 
especially  should  be  elected.  Possibly  I  am  wrong  in  this, 
but  I  am  willing  to  abide  by  it. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention: 
I  will  not  tell  you  at  the  start  that  I  do  not  intend  to  make  a 
speech,  because  you  will  know  before  I  get  through  that  1 
have  tried  to  make  one,  however  well  I  may  succeed.  I  have 
noticed  that  those  who  have  told  us  they  did  not  intend  to 
make  a  speech  have  managed  to  keep  on  their  feet  a  long 
time  and  say  a  good  deal. 

It  was  my  privilege  to  introduce  this  measure  which  bears 
the  name  of  the  "Barton  bill,"  and  which  has  been  talked 
about  more  or  less  at  every  session  of  this  Convention.  I  am 
very  anxious  that  my  position  on  that  measure  should  be  un- 
derstood, and  I  feel  that  it  is  not  at  present. 

I  believe  there  is  a  great  principle  involved  in  the  way  that 
our  towns  are  represented  in  the  legislature  and  in  the  make- 
up of  our  representative  body.  I  do  not  think  it  can  be  re- 
duced to  a  matter  of  dollars  and  cents.  I  agree  with  the  gen- 
tleman from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Drew,  who  spoke  this  morning. 
I  have  heard  some  say  they  did  not -really  understand  his 
position.  If  that  gentleman  did  not  make  himself  plain  I 
may  well  despair  of  succeeding  better.  I  understood  the  gen- 
tleman to  say  his  idea  was  that  all  towns  should  have  a  rep- 
resentative in  the  legislature  to  speak  for  them,  and  be  at  all 
times  ready  to  protect  their  interests,  that  their  cases  might 
not  go  by  default. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  415 

Thus  far  I  think  we  have  not  listened  to  a  single  reference 
to  our  Federal  Constitution,  and  I  would  like  to  read,  with 
jour  forbearance,  one  or  two  sections  from  that  document. 

Article  I,  Section  2. 

"SECT.  2.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  be  composed 
'of  members  chosen  every  second  year  by  the  people  of  the 
several  states,  and  the  electors  in  each  state  shall  have  the 
qualifications  requisite  for  electors  of  the  most  numerous 
branch  of  the  state  legislature. 

"No  person  shall  be  a  representative  who  shall  not  have 
attained  to  the  age  of  twenty-five  years,  and  been  seven  years 
a  citizen  of  the  United  States,  and  who  shall  not,  when  elect- 
•ed,  be  an  inhabitant  of  that  state  in  which  he  shall  be  chosen. 

"Bepresentatives  and  direct  taxes  shall  be  apportioned 
among  the  several  states  which  may  be  included  within  this 
Union,  according  to  their  respective  numbers,  which  shall  be 
determined  by  adding  to  the  whole  number  of  free  persons, 
including  those  bound  to  service  for  a  term  of  years,  and  ex- 
cluding Indians  not  taxed,  three  fifths  of  all  other  persons. 
The  actual  enumeration  shall  be  made  within  three  years 
after  the  first  meeting  of  the  congress  of  the  United  States, 
and  within  every  subsequent  term  of  ten  years,  in  such  man- 
ner as  they  shall  by  law  direct.  The  number  of  representa- 
tives shall  not  exceed  one  for  every  30,000;  ~but  each  state  shall 
have  at  least  one  representative,  .  .  " 

Now  right  there  is  the  meat  of  the  whole  proposition.  We 
are  told  that  it  is  not  right  for  a  town  of  600  people  to  have 
a  representative,  and  that  other  towns  go  on  acquiring  2,000 
additional  population  before  they  will  be  given  a  second 
representative.  I  grant  that  is  not  perfectly  equal,  but  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  gave  New 
Hampshire  the  right  to  a  representative,  and  gave  the  same 
right  to  every  state  in  the  Union  to  have  a  representative  in 
our  federal  congress  assembled  at  Washington.  They  said 
that  every  state  should  be  heard.  The  inequality  of  the  sys- 


416     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

tern  but  represents  the  sacrifice  our  fathers  were  willing  to 
make  for  the  principle  of  popular  representation. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — If  the  gentleman  will  pardon  me,  I 
should  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Newport  a  question. 

The  Chairman — Does  the  gentleman  from  Newport  yield 
to  the  gentleman  from  Bow? 

Mr.  Barton — Yes. 

Mr.  Baker — My  question  is  if  he  does  not  recognize  that 
there  is  a  vast  difference  between  towns  included  in  a  state — 
in  one  family  as  it  were — and  the  situation  of  the  different 
independent  states  forming  a  constitution  wherein  those  sev- 
eral states  each  yield  something  for  the  purpose  of  establish- 
ing an  organization  or  union?  One  is  a  family  and  the  other 
is  a  group  of  families. 

Mr.  Barton — I  will  answer  the  gentleman  by  saying  that  I 
think  it  has  been  pretty  well  settled  that  our  Federal  Union  is- 
but  one  family.  It  has  cost  a  good  deal- of  money  and  blood 
to  settle  it,  but  I  have  always  thought  it  was  so  settled,  and 
settled  nearly  forty  years  ago.  Yet  in  all  this  time  our  Con- 
stitution has  not  been  changed  in  this  respect.  I  take  it  that 
the  states  do  form  a  union  in  this  country  as  indissoluble  as 
that  of  a  family,  and  the  principle  of  representation  is  ex- 
actly the  same  when  applied  to  the  little  towns  of  the  state 
with  reference  to  the  whole  state  as  it  is  in  the  larger  field  of 
the  whole  Union  when  applied  to  the  different  states  of  the 
Union.  I  maintain  it  is  precisely  the  same  principle,  and  the 
framers  of  that  great  instrument  recognized  the  principle  of 
representation  as  one  of  such  moment  that  concessions  should 
be  made  to  it,  and  then  and  there  they  said  that  every  state, 
QO  matter  how  small,  should  have  a  voice  in  congress.  That 
was  for  the  purpose  of  representation  and  for  no  other.  They 
did  not  propose  to  have  a  state's  case  called  in  congress  and 
no  man  there  to  answer  for  it.  They  said  that  there  should 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  417 

be  a  man  there  to  stand  for  it,  to  represent  it,  and  that  is  the 
principle  that  I  believe  should  be  laid  down  and  kept  in  the 
Constitution  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — Suppose  this  condition  conies 
about,  that  by  and  by  the  Union  consists  of  100  states,  if  it 
were  possible,  for  the  purpose  of  illustration — and  it  coming 
about  gradually  and  unavoidably  that  seventy-five  of  those 
states  would  be  in  the  relative  condition  of  Delaware  and 
Nevada,  which  has  only  population  enough  to  make  a  decent 
city — suppose  it  should  come  about  that  seventy-five  out  of  a 
hundred  would  be  in  that  condition,  would  the  proposition 
that  each  state  should  have  a  representative  be  a  fair  one? 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport — I  believe  most  emphatically  it 
would.  I  think  that  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  never 
should  agree  to  elect  a  representative  to  congress  for  only 
part  of  the  time,  and  say,  let  Ehode  Island  elect  for  a  part  of 
the  time,  but  that  New  Hampshire  should  always  have  an 
advocate  in  the  national  house,  and  if  it  becomes  necessary  to 
construct  a  new  capitol  at  Washington  to  accommodate  the 
representatives,  as  it  is  feared  we  shall  have  to  do  in  Concord, 
we  will  build  a  new  capitol.  The  principle  of  representation 
is  so  inextricably  interwoven  into  the  fabric  of  our  govern- 
ment, that  you  cannot  pluck  it  out  except  you  destroy  the 
government  itself.  Each"  state  will  always  insist  upon  repre- 
sentation in  congress  all  of  the  time.  It  was  this  principle  of 
representation  which  I  had  in  mind  and  acted  on  when  I  fixed 
the  number  for  the  first  representative  at  600. 

I  do  not  approve  pro-rating  towns  having  less  population 
than  600,  believing  the  same  to  be  fundamentally  wrong,  but 
I  am  aware  that  in  1876  the  country  towns  consented  to  this 
arrangement.  Feeling  that  we  are  assembled  to  accomplish 
the  reduction  of  the  house,  and  not  thinking  we  had  come  to 
the  point  where  we  were  likely  to  adopt  anything  radically 
different  from  our  present  method  of  electing  representatives, 
I  presented  this  measure.  Thus  to  me  the  most  feasible  prop- 
osition seemed  to  strike  off  one  or  two  representatives  from 
27 


I 

418     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

towns  and  cities  sending  several,  and  not  to  increase  that  class 
of  towns  which  are  represented  only  a  part  of  the  time. 

If  we  are  prepared  to  adopt  the  district  system,  I  will  not 
oppose  it,  for  I  believe  it  is  the  only  scheme,  apart  from  each 
town  having  a  representative  of  its  own  all  of  the  time,  which 
is  theoretically  correct  in  America.  But,  gentlemen,  we  are 
not  prepared  for  that  system,  as  all  who  have  taken  the  tem- 
per of  this  Convention  thoroughly  understand.  The  gentle- 
man from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Kent,  speaking  ef  a  very  important 
feature  of  this  question  yesterday,  said  that  it  was  a  very  differ- 
ent thing  for  a  town  which  had  three  representatives  to  concede 
one  or  possibly  two,  from  what  it  was  for  a  town  which  had 
only  one  representative  to  concede  that  one.  This,  gentle- 
men, is  unquestionably  so.  We  would  be  willing  to  lose  one 
representative  in  Newport,  and  the  town,  as  a  matter  of  fact, 
^expects  to  lose  one,  and  we  might  be  brought  to  think  that  we 
•could  get  along  with  a  loss  of  two,  but  we  would  fight  tooth 
and  nail  before  we  would  lose  the  last  one,  because  we  want 
to  be  represented.  You  are  rubbing  harder  when  you  rub  out 
the  last  one,  than  when-  you  are  rubbing  out  one  out  of  four 
•or  five. 

The  friends  of  this  bill,  in  considering  what  it  would  cost, 
asked  themselves  the  question,  "How  much  can  I  afford  to 
give?"  Some  thought  they  could  give  one  representative; 
other  towns  thought  they  could  give  two,  and  so  we  went 
along  in  this  way.  This  was  the  spirit  in  which  we  looked  at 
it — not  how  much  is  the  other  fellow  going  to  give,  but  how 
much  can  we  afford  to  give.  We  might  have  been  foolish  and 
not  foresighted  in  taking  this  position,  but  actually  that  is 
the  way  we  looked  at  it.  But  when  we  come  down  to  Man- 
chester, the  delegates  do  not  look  at  the  matter  in  this  way. 
It  is  not  how  much  they  can  afford  to  give,  but  how  much  the 
other  fellow  is  going  to  give.  I  do  not  think  Manchester  is 
looking  at  it  from  the  right  standpoint.  How  much  can  they 
afford  to  give  for  the  sake  of  reducing  the  house  without 
jeopardizing  their  interests,  and  how  much  can  we  afford  to 
give.  This  is  the  principle  I  think  we  ought  to  act  upon. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  10,  1902.  419 

They  say  the  little  town  has  no  interests  in  the  legislation 
of  the  state,  no  vital  interest,  but  has  n't  it?  There  has 
been,  and  will  be,  legislation  along  the  lines  of  good  roads, 
forestry,  fish  and  game,  summer  visitors,  etc.  Do  not  every 
one  of  these  questions  affect  the  rural  communities?  They 
do  not  all  involve  expenditure  of  money,  perhaps,  but  they  are 
of  importance  to  these  country  towns. 

At  the  present  time,  gentlemen,  there  are  sixty-eight"  or 
nine  pro-rated  towns  and  it  is  agreed  that  only  two  thirds 
send  a  representative  to  any  single  legislature.  This  makes 
one  third  that  is  always  left  out — twenty-three  towns  that 
have  no  vote  or  voice  in  our  legislative  body.  If  you  are  to 
raise  the  number  for  the  first  representative  to  800 — or  for 
that  matter  if  you  should  raise  it  to  seven,  as  it  would  make 
little  difference  because  most  of  the  damage  is  done  between 
six  and  seven — if  you  should  raise  it  to  800  you  would  have 
thirty-seven  towns  left  out  every  time  you  came  to  the  legis- 
lature, they  would  have  no  voice  in  the  legislation  enacted 
and  no  one  to  represent  their  interests.  I  say  that  this  is  not 
right.  It  is  in  flat  violation  of  our  Federal  Constitution.  It  is 
undemocratic,  it  is  unjust,  and  I  am  unalterably  opposed  to  it. 

I  hope  I  have  made  myself  plain  in  this  matter.  If  we  are 
prepared  for  a  system  that  will  represent  us  all  in  each  legis- 
lature I  am  for  such  a  system.  If  we  are  not,  let  us  stop  right 
here  and  not  extend  any  further  this  inequitable  and  un- 
American  doctrine  of  disfranchising  our  small  towns. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Franklin — I  move  that  the  Committee  do  now 
arise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

(Motion  prevailed.) 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Little,  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  re- 
ported that  the  Committee  had  been  in  session,  having  had 


420    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

under  consideration  article  nine,  part  two  of  the  Constitution, 
relating  to  the  legislative  department  of  the  government  of 
our  state,  and  had  voted  to  rise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave 
to  sit  again. 

Leave  was  granted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chase  of  Bristol,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed. 


THUESDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902. 
The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 
Prayer  was  offered  "by  the  chaplain. 

The  reading  of  the  journal  of  the  preceding  day  was  begun, 
when  on  motion  of  Mr.  Stone  of  Andover,  the  further  reading 
was  dispensed  with. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Little  of  Manchester,  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  consider  the 
various  resolutions  in  amendment  of  article  nine,  part  two  of 
the  Constitution,  relating  to  representation. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Pike  of  Stark — Gentlemen  of  the  Committee:  I  did  not 
intend  to  take  any  of  your  time.  There  has  been  plenty  of 
talk  here  and  some  figures  which  are  misleading,  I  think.  I 
assume,  gentlemen,  that  a  majority  -of  this  body  favors  the 
town  system,  therefore  I  shall  confine  my  talk  to  that  propo- 
sition and  to  the  matter  of  the  minimum  number  that  should 
be  required  for  the  first  representative. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  421 

We  have  in  this  state  thirty  towns  with  a  population  of 
from  six  to  seven  hundred,  and  twelve  towns  with  a  popula- 
tion of  from  seven  to  eight  hundred,  making  in  all  forty-two 
towns  with  a  population  of  between  600  and  800.  Those 
towns  if  allowed  to  elect  representatives  to  each  session  of  the 
legislature  as  they  would  be  on  a  basis  of  600,  on  a  basis  of  800 
would  have  to  be  pro-rated.  Pro-rated  they  would  be  allowed 
to  elect  legislators  three  fourths  of  the  time,  which  would 
take  out  only  eleven  members  at  each  session  of  the  legisla- 
ture— not  a  very  large  number.  If  the  first  number  was  made 
700  instead  of  800,  then  you  would  simply  have  three  more 
members  from  those  towns  than  if  the  number  were  fixed  at 
800.  The  thirty  towns  from  six  to  seven  hundred  would  send 
but  eight  representatives  to  each  session  of  the  legislature 
more  if  allowed  to  elect  on  a  basis  of  600,  and  they  would 
only  send  eleven  less  on  the  basis  of  800  than  if  allowed  to 
.elect  on  the  basis  of  600.  That  is  not  a  very  large  increase. 
It  does  not  seem  to  me  that  it  is  large  enough  to  be  dangerous. 

My  first  idea  was  that  this  struck  the  northern  part  of  the 
state,  but  when  I  came  to  go  over  it  I  found  it  was  not  so.  It 
strikes  the  southern  part  of  the  state,  the  towns  contiguous  to 
large  cities,  and  certainly  those  cities  ought  not  to  be  afraid 
to  have  one  or  two  representatives  from  towns  contiguous  to 
them.  The  only  harm  they  would  possibly  do  in  any  event 
would  be  in  the  county  conventions  for  the  purpose  of  raising 
money  and  building  county  buildings,  etc.  Certainly  it 
would  be  a  pretty  small  representation  that  they  would  have 
in  addition  if  allowed  to  elect  on  the  old  basis  of  600  instead 
of  800.  It  would  only  increase  the  members  in  each  session 
of  the  legislature  eleven  if  put  at  six  instead  of  eight,  and  if 
put  at  seven  instead  of  eignt  it  would  make  a  difference  of 
only  three  in  each  legislature. 

The  following  is  the  difference  by  counties  that  it  would 
make  if  the  basis  was  600  instead  of  800: 

In  the  county  of  Eockingham,  2. 

In  Strafford,  %  of  1. 

In  Belknap,  %  of  1. 


422     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

In  Carroll,  %. 

In  Merrimack,  it  would  add  2. 

In  Hillsborough,  1%. 

In  Cheshire,  %  of  1. 

In  Sullivan  it  would  make  no  difference. 

In  Grafton,  2. 

In  Coos,  1. 

In  the  county  of  Eockingham  there  are  six  towns  with  a 
population  of  from  600  to  700,  and  two  of  a  population  of 
from  700  to  800,  so  they  would  get  two  additional  representa- 
tives in  each  house,  or  at  each  session.  In  Straff ord  there  is 
only  one  town  from  GOO  to  700  and  none  from  700  to  800. 
In  Belknap  county  there  is  one  from  600  to  700  and  none 
from  700  to  800.  In  Carroll,  there  are  three  from  600  to  700 
and  none  from  700  to  800.  In  Merrimack,  there  are  five  from 
600  to  700,  and  four  from  700  to  800. 

It  is  not  favoring  the  boys  up  in  the  woods  to  allow  600  as 
the  minimum,  but  it  is  favoring  the  lower  end  of  the  state. 

In  Hillsborough  county  there  are  six  from  600  to  700,  and 
none  from  700  to  800.  In  Cheshire  county  there  is  one  from 
600  to  700,  and  two  from  700  to  800.  In  Sullivan  county 
there  are  none.  In  Grafton  there  are  six  from  600  to  700  and 
two  from  700  to  800.  In  Coos  there  are  two  from  600  to  700 
and  two  from  700  to  800.  Two  of  those  towns  are  Carroll, 
with  perhaps  more  summer  hotel  property  than  any  other 
town  in  the  state  except  perhaps  Bethlehem,  and  the  other 
one  of  those  towns  is  Pittsburg,  and  all  those  towns  in  Coos 
county  are  towns  having  a  large  value  in  timber  lands. 

I  do  not  see  how  it  would  be  doing  any  wrong,  and  I  do 
not  think  it  would  be  dangerous  to  add  eleven  members  to  the 
house  at  each  session.  I  think  this  house  will  vote  for  the 
town  system,  and  I  think  it  will  put  it  on  the  basis  of  600,  be- 
cause I  think  it  will  do  no  injustice. 

Mr.  Clyde  of  Hudson — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Committee:  I  do  not  come  down  here  in  front  for  the 
purpose  of  making  a  speech,  but  I  have  contracted  a  bad  cold; 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  428 

since  coming  to  this  Convention  and  I  think  it  will  be  more 
comfortable  for  you  and  for  myself  also  if  I  come  down  here 
where  you  can  all  hear  me. 

I  would  ask,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the  clerk  read  the  resolu- 
tion which  I  presented.  (Eesolution  read  by  the  clerk.) 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  as  the  chair  has  stated,  I 
come  from  the  town  of  Hudson,  a  country  town,  a  town  on 
the  east  bank  of  the  Merrimack  opposite  the  city  of  Nashua. 
I  was  not  born  in  that  town.  I  was  born  in  the  old  state  of 
Massachusetts,  but  when  I  was  two  years  old  they  brought  me 
into  that  town  and  there  since  that  time  for  the  most  part  I 
have  resided.  I  have  played  in  its  fields,  fished  in  its  streams, 
and  worked  on  its  land;  I  have  served  in  different  capacities 
in  that  town,  and  people  have  trusted  me  and  I  have  trusted 
them.  That  is  my  home  and  of  course  I  love  that  town  and: 
have  an  interest  in  it. 

Over  to  the  east  of  that  town  is  the  old  town  of  Windham. 
There  in  1672  my  great-great-grandfather  settled,  and  there 
in  the  woods  is  the  old  homestead.  Down  there  in  front  of  the 
old  homestead  is  the  spot  where  it  is  said  the  minute-men  of 
Windham  mustered  to  take  part  in  the  War  of  the  Bevolu- 
tion.  Down  there  in  the  old  cemetery  are  the  graves  of  my 
grandfather,  my  great-grandfather,  and  my  great-great-grand- 
father. I  love  that  old  town  as  well,  and  I  would  be  the  last 
man  to  vote  away  from  either  of  those  towns  any  of  their 
sacred  privileges. 

After  I  finished  my  school,  and  passed  the  New  Hampshire- 
bar  examination,  which  my  friend  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Eastman,, 
presided  over,  I  hung  my  shingle  out  in  the  city  of  Nashua. 
I  have  been  going  in  and  out  of  that  city  for  the  last  seven- 
years  and  have  become  pretty  well  acquainted  with  its  busi- 
ness men,  its  lawyers,  and  professional  men,  and  my  business 
has  enabled  me  to  come  in  contact  with  these  people.  Some 
of  them  are  of  the  old  Dunstable  stock;  some  of  them  come- 
from  New  Boston,  as  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr. 
Wason;  some  from  Milford,  as  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,. 
Mr.  Hamblett;  and  some  from  the  snowy  plains  of  Canada; 


424     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

some  from  the  isles  across  the  sea;  some  from  the  plains  of 
Poland,  and  some  of  them  from  the  shores  of  the  Mediter- 
ranean where  perhaps  Paul  embarked  for  the  city  of  Rome, 
and  I  love  that  city  and  its  people  and  have  a  business  interest 
there.  So  I  have  an  interest  in  the  city  and  town  as  well. 

I  do  not  want  my  patriotism  to  be  bounded  by  Pelham  on 
the  south,  Windham  an  the  east,  Litchfield  on  the  north,  nor 
the  Merrimack  river  on  the  west.  Out  here  in  your  state 
house  yard  you  have  a  statue  of  the  greatest  son  of  New 
Hampshire,  who  subsequently  became  a  son  of  Massachusetts 
and  was  later  claimed  as  a  son  of  the  Union.  He  said  some- 
thing about  patriotism  once  upon  a  time.  On  the  26th  day  of 
January,  1830,  he  said  in  the  senate  of  the  United  States,  re- 
plying to  that  great  senator  from  South  Carolina — I  want  to 
read  just  a  word — 

"I  shall  not  acknowledge  that  the  honorable  member  goes 
before  me  in  regard  for  whatever  of  distinguished  talent  or 
distinguished  character  South  Carolina  has  produced.  I  claim 
part  of  the  honor,  I  partake  in  the  pride  of  her  great  name. 
I  claim  them  for  countrymen,  one  and  all.  The  Laurenses, 
the  Rutledges,  the  Pinckneys,  the  Sumpters,  the  Marions- 
Americans  all — whose  fame  is  no  more  to  be  hemmed  in  by 
the  state  lines  than  their  talents  and  patriotism  were  capable 
of  being  circumscribed  within  the  same  narrow  limits.  In 
their  day  and  generation,  they  served  and  honored  the  coun- 
try, and  the  whole  country;  and  their  renown  is  of  the  treas- 
ures of  the  whole  country." 

Now,  my  friends,  to-day  we  ought  to  come  here  with  a 
spirit  like  that  of  Daniel  Webster.  There  should  be  no 
Nashua  here,  no  Manchester  here,  no  Coos  here,  no  Carroll 
here — nothing  but  New  Hampshire,  the  grand  old  state  of 
New  Hampshire,  the  grandest  and  best  republic  of  all  the 
land.  So  my  first  thought,  gentlemen,  is  patriotism,  patriot- 
ism for  old  New  Hampshire. 

My  second  thought  is  justice.  A  gentleman  from  Nashua 
said  that  there  is  no  God,  but  there  is  a  God,  gentlemen,  and 
He  presides  over  the  destinies  of  nations  and  of  peoples, 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  425 

and  has  presided  over  the  destiny  of  this  Union,  and  has  and 
is  presiding  over  the  destiny  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 
What  did  He  through  his  apostles  say:  "And  what  doth  the 
Lord  require  of  thee,  but  to  do  justly,  and  to  love  mercy,  and 
to  walk  humbly  with  thy  God?"  Again,  "Thou  shalt  not 
steal;"  "Thou  shalt  not  covet  thy  neighbor's  wife,  or  his  ox,  or 
his  ass,  or  anything  that  is  thy  neighbor's."  I  do  not  know 
but  it  is  just  as  well  to  apply  that  politically  as  in  any  other 
way,  and  so  my  thought  is,  gentlemen,  in  whatever  we  do  it 
shall  be  done  first  in  patriotism  and  then  with  justice  and 
equity. 

Now  we  have  been  here,  as  the  gentleman  from  Bedford, 
Mr.  Woodbury,  has  said,  and  we  have  carried  on  this  discus- 
•sion  under  this  plan  for  the  most  part.  Members  have  come 
here  with  the  idea  of  justice  and  equity,  and  they  have  pre- 
sented their  resolutions  with  the  idea  that  they  tend  to  justice 
and  the  best  interests  of  New  Hampshire  and  to  equality  for 
all.  Now  what  have  we  here  in  the  problems  that  we  have 
been  discussing.  The  gentleman  from  Laconia,  Mr.  Busiel, 
said  the  other  day  when  the  framers  of  our  Constitution 
framed  article  nine,  that  we  have  under  consideration,  they 
came  down  to  the  words  "There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of 
this  state,  a  representation  of  the  people  biennially  elected,  and 
founded  upon  principles  of  equality,"  and  then  stopped  there 
and  inserted  something  which  was  very  unjust.  Perhaps  I 
agree  with  him  and  perhaps  I  do  not;  but  I  will  say  this,  that 
they  did  not  only  stop  there  but  went  a  little  further  and  they 
gave  away  some  of  their  sacred  rights.  They  put  into  the 
hands  of  their  representatives  absolute  power,  without  the 
power  to  undo  the  work  of  those  representatives  except 
through  a  general  election.  This  principle,  gentlemen,  I  be- 
lieve has  worked  evil  in  this  country  and  has  produced  the 
evils  that  our  great  high-minded  president  of  the  United 
States  is  now  grappling  with  and  for  which  he  deserves  the 
support  of  every  citizen  of  every  town  and  every  state  in  the 
Union.  With  reference  to  the  giving  away  of  some  of  this 
power  I  have  introduced  a  resolution  which  I  will  speak  of 
later  in  this  Convention. 


426     JOUIINAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Now,  gentlemen,  we  are  in  the  same  position  in  one  sense 
that  our  fathers  were  in  their  day.  We  are  met  here  for  the 
some  purposes.  We  are  to  try  to  find  equality  between  the 
towns.  We  have  considered  this  question  for  days  and  have 
heard  the  best  and  most  accomplished  men  from  the  New 
Hampshire  bar  and  from  all  walks  of  life  with  reference  to 
this  subject.  What  is  the  conclusion  of  this  whole  matter?  It 
is  that  whatever  system  we  adopt  it  will  not  be  exactly  a  sys- 
tem of  perfect  equality. 

Some  have  said  that  Mr.  Lyf  ord's  proposition  represents  the 
largest  equality.  The  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Bart- 
lett,  a  good  lawyer  and  a  man  whom  I  respect,  has  said  so,  but 
it  does  not  represent  absolute  equality.  The  gentleman  from 
Bedford,  Mr.  Woodbury,  yesterday  punctured  it  twice.  I 
think  Judge  Bartlett  showed  it  up  when  he  said  in  his  article 
in  The  Manchester  Union  that  no  better  scheme  for  keeping 
the  party  in  power  in  control  could  be  devised,  as  the  state 
could  be  so  divided  as  to  maintain  a  majority  in  the  house. 
But  Mr.  Lyford  jumps  up  and  says,  "Let  the  supreme  court 
do  that  redistricting."  Gentlemen,  I  object.  I  am  an  at- 
torney in  New  Hampshire,  and  I  have  given  three  years  of  my 
life  to  the  law.  I  am  interested  in  the  good  administration  of 
the  law.  That  is  my  business.  Gentlemen,  I  insist  that  the 
supreme  court  of  New  Hampshire  shall  be  kept  pure  and  in- 
violate. I  insist  that  the  supreme  court  shall  not  be  dele- 
gated to  appoint  schoolmarms  in  country  schools,  or  select- 
men, or  county  solicitors,  or  sheriffs,  but  it  shall  be  and  re- 
main a  pure  and  honorable  body  as  it  always  has  been,  and 
that  there  shall  be  no  politics  mixed  up  with  it. 

Mr.  Barton's  resolution  is  not  equitable.  I  think  Mr.  Ly- 
ford in  his  remarks  showed  that.  Also  in  the  bill  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  I  think  there  is  inequality 
in  that.  You  know  it.  You  cannot  put  that  bill  down  as  one 
of  perfect  equality. 

Now  what  is  to  be  said  of  my  scheme,  to  have  one  repre- 
sentative from  every  ward  of  a  city  and  every  town  of  the 
state?  What  do  you  say  to  that?  My  Brother  Hamblett  said 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  427 

the  other  night  that  that  was  the  worst  yet.  One  of  the  points 
here,  and  the  principal  point  is  to  get  rid  of  this  inequality  of 
representation  in  some  way.  You  all  love  equality,  and  you 
are  all  interested  in  having  equality  in  the  election  of  repre- 
sentatives. In  all  of  these  systems  that  have  been  presented 
there  would  be  undoubtedly  inequality  in  representation.  I 
have  in  my  resolution  provided  for  a  representative  from  each 
ward  and  town  in  .the  state.  There  may  be  inequality  in 
that,  but  my  remedy  for  any  injustice  that  might  arise  from 
such  inequality  of  representation  would  be  in  insuring  a  refer- 
endum to  the  people  of  all  questions.  I  want  to  ask  you,  gen- 
tlemen, to  study  this  when  you  have  the  time.  I  do  say  that 
my  proposition  would  be  the  most  equitable  of  any  proposition 
that  has  been  proposed. 

Now  let  us  come  to  this  question  with  a  view  of  the  best 
interests  of  the  state.  What  are  the  best  interests  of  New 
Hampshire?  I  will  say  in  the  first  place,  economy.  Do  we 
not  want  economy  in  New  Hampshire?  Have  we  any  money 
to  throw  away?  Coal  is  $10  a  ton,  and  the  cattle  disease  has 
crossed  the  line. 

Some  of  you  have  said  that  you  came  here  with  no  precon- 
ceived notions.  I  did.  I  came  here  with  the  notion  that  we 
should  have  only  100  representatives.  I  said  that  this  large 
number,  300,  is  too  many  and  too  expensive  to  the  state.  So 
I  went  to  figuring.  Supposing  you  could  cut  the  representa- 
tion down  to  100  members.  Supposing  on  the  average  we 
have  had  in  this  state  375  for  the  last  twenty-five  sessions — I 
do  not  know  whether  that  is  right  or  not.  You  have  paid 
them  each  at  least  $250  a  session.  "We  will  take  out  275,  and 
that  represents  an  annual  payment  of  $68,750,  that  would  be 
saved  at  each  session  of  the  legislature.  Twenty-five  times 
that  amount  would  be  $1,718,750.  Would  not  that  money 
have  done  a  great  deal  of  good  in  New  Hampshire  if  it  had 
been  expended  in  other  ways?  They  tell  us  that  it  would  cost 
$5,000,  to  build  a  mile  of  boulevard.  How  many  miles  of 
boulevard  can  we  build  in  New  Hampshire  with  that  money? 
Three  hundred  and  fort}^-three.  Lay  that  number  of  miles 


428     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

down  on  your  map  when  you  go  home  and  see  how  it*  would 
benefit  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  How  many  school- 
houses  could  be  built  with  it?  We  will  say  that  the  average 
cost  of  a  schoolhouse  is  $2,000.  Perhaps  that  is  high.  How 
many  schoolhouses  would  that  sum  of  money  build?  Eight 
hundred  and  fifty-nine.  I  served  on  a  school  board  awhile 
and  know  what  it  costs  a  week  to  run  a  school.  We  will  say 
$80  or  $90.  Suppose  in  the  average  country  town  it  costs 
$100  a  week.  How  many  weeks  of  school  would  that  $1,700,- 
000,  give  us?  Mr.  Baker  said]  that  we  had  225  towns  in  New 
Hampshire.  Divide  that  up  among  the  225  towns,  and  it 
would  give  us  $7,600.  I  think  the  average  year's  term  about 
twenty-five  weeks.  Divide  seventy-six  by  three  and  you  would 
have  about  twenty-five.  That  is,  you  would  have  three  years 
of  school  of  twenty-five  weeks  in  each  town  for  the  money  that 
has  been  paid  to  these  additional  representatives.  I  think 
that  would  do  a  lot  of  good  in  the  cause  of  education. 

We  will  come  to  another  point,  and  this  point  is  work  well 
done.  I  think  100  members  of  the  legislature  will  do  the  work 
of  this  state  well,  as  well  as  a  larger  number.  • 

In  some  respects  I  have  changed  my  ideas  with  reference  to 
the  number  that  should  be  in  the  house  -by  talking  with  other 
members  of  this  Convention,  and  I  think,  all  things  consid- 
ered, there  ought  to  be  about  300  members.  Whatever  system 
we  choose,  whether  Mr.  Lyford's  district  system,  or  Mr.  Bar- 
ton's town  system,  or  Mr.  Mitchell's  system,  we  have  in  each 
about  300  members.  The  district  system  would  give  us  just 
300.  Mr.  Barton's  and  Mr.  Mitchell's  about  the  same.  How 
many  would  we  have  under  the  system  that  I  have  proposed? 
There  are  225  towns  and  sixty-six  wards  in  the  state,  and  that 
would  make  291,  if  I  am  correct.  And  so  in  all  of  these  sys- 
tems we  seem  to  be  agreed  upon  about  300  as  the  number. 

Coming  to  another  point,  that  of  efficiency  of  representa- 
tion. There  is  a  distinction  between  equality  of  representa- 
tion and  efficiency  of  representation.  What  is  that  distinc- 
tion? This  state  is  made  up  of  little  republics,  as  has  been 
said,  little  communities  which  are  republics  in  themselves. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  429 

Now  it  is  well  for  the  representatives  to  know  the  character- 
istics and  the  purposes  and  the  wants  of  the  community  that 
they  represent.  It  has  been  proposed  that  Hudson  and  Pel- 
ham  be  united  to  send  a  representative  to  the  house.  I  know 
Hudson  pretty  well,  I  know  its  people  and  its  policies;  but  I 
do  not  know  nearly  so  well  the  people  of  the  town  of  Pelham 
or  its  wants.  I  do  not  know  the  policy  of  that  town.  If,  there- 
fore, I  should  be  elected  to  represent  that  town  with  Hudson 
would  there  not  be  an  inefficiency  of  representation  so  far  as 
Pelham  is  concerned,  and  if  a  man  from  Pelham  was  elected 
to  represent  both  towns  would  not  the  same  inefficiency  of 
representation  apply  for  the  town  of  Hudson.  That  is  what  I 
mean  by  inefficiency  of  representation,  and  what  I  seek  to 
avoid  in  my  scheme.  I  say  that  my  scheme  of  having  a  man 
from  every  town  and  every  ward  represents  the  best  efficiency. 
My  proposition  as  regards  efficiency  is  at  one  end  of  the  line 
whereas  Mr.  Lyford's  proposition  is  at  the  other  end,  while  his 
represents  the  best  equality.  Now,  then,  we  must  get  together. 

Here  is  another  point,  and  that  is,  permanency  of  repre- 
sentation should  be  considered.  How  about  that.  Mr.  Ly- 
ford's  scheme  proposes  300  members  all  the  time.  Mr. 
Mitchell's  proposes  to  have  301  all  the  time.  My  scheme 
would  give  us  291  all  the  time.  Mr.  Barton's  would  not,  but 
a  constant  increase. 

Let  us  see  then  what  we  are  after.  We  want  efficiency  with 
equality  and  with  permanency  in  this  matter. 

Now  I  think  Mr.  Mitchell's  proposition  represents  perma- 
nency. I  think  for  a  large  part  also  it  represents  efficiency, 
as  you  will  get  representatives  who  have  knowledge  of  the 
people  and  of  the  policies  of  these  little  towns.  For  a  large 
part  it  also  represents  equality  of  representation,  but  there  is 
something  lacking  with  that.  What  is  it?  I  want  something 
that  will  give  an  opportunity  to  undo  if  anything  is  done 
wrong  by  reason  of  this  inequality  of  representation.  If  by 
reason  of  a  greater  representation  from  the  towns  than  from 
the  cities.  For  instance,  if  by  means  of  that  greater  repre- 
sentation the  towns  shall  say  to  the  cities,  "You  must  have 


430     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

prohibition,"  forcing  the  people  of  the  cities  to  submit,  and 
thus  making  them  hypocrites  and  liars  and  everything  else — 
I  want  to  give  the  cities  an  opportunity  to  appeal.  To  appeal 
to  whom.  To  appeal  to  the  tribunal  of  last  resorts.  To  ap- 
peal to  the  czar.  Who  is  the  czar  in  New  Hampshire?  The 
people.  They  are  the  jury,  and  there  should  be  a  chance  of 
.appeal  to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire.  Take  good  roads, 
for  instance,  in  the  southern  part  of  the  state.  We  want  a 
boulevard  from  Nashua  to  Manchester,  but  supposing  there  is 
a  great  inequality  of  representation  in  favor  of  the  towns  and 
the  people  from  the  north  think  that  we  don't  need  such  a 
boulevard  and  refuse  to  give  it  to  us.  We  want  the  chance  to 
appeal  to  the  whole  people,  and  by  the  referendum  petition 
have  that  matter  decided  by  the  court  of  last  resort — the 
people. 

Now  Mr.  Mitchell  is  a  Democrat  and  his  party  has  en- 
dorsed the  referendum  principle.  Now  I  stand  here  as  a  Re- 
publican, knowing  what  Eepublican  Governor  Geer  of  Oregon 
said;  knowing  what  Republican  Governor  Crane  of  Massachu- 
setts said;  knowing  what  these  men  have  said,  I  stand  here  as 
.a  Republican  and  offer  my  referendum  amendment  to  Mr. 
Mitchell's  bill,  and  then  it  is  a  perfect  bill, — perhaps  not  per- 
fect, but  the  best  we  can  get. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough — If  I  am  correct  in  my  time, 
Mr.  Chairman,  we  have  but  a  little  more  than  half  an  hour 
before  the  time  for  the  special  order,  when  we  are  to  com- 
mence to  vote  upon  this  question.  While  I  now  have  the 
floor  and  consequently  could  keep  it  until  that  time  if  I  saw 
fit  unless  the  Convention  sat  me  down,  I  would  not  be  so  un- 
fair. In  the  short  time  which  we  now  have  to  discuss  this 
matter  I  think  speeches  should  be  limited  to  five  minutes, 
and  I  therefore  move  that  from  now  until  the  time  of  the 
special  order  all  speeches  be  limited  to  that  time. 

(Question  is  put  by  the  chair  and  the  motion  prevailed.) 
Mr.  Rogers  of  Tilton — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  431 

this  Convention:  If  any  one  had  said  to  me  two  months  ago 
that  I  was  to  stand  before  this  Convention  and  address  it  on 
the  constitutional  question  I  should  have  said  they  were  very 
much  mistaken. 

I  am  very  conservative,  and  if  conservatism  is  evidence  of 
ignorance,  as  stated  to  us  yesterday,  I  must  be  densely 
ignorant.  It  seems  to  me  as  I  have  listened  to  this  discussion, 
and  I  have  heard  it  all,  that  there  is  one  principle  that  has 
been  overlooked  entirely  by  the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken. 
I  know  the  gentlemen  who  have  preceded  me  know  more  con- 
stitutional law,  and  forget  more  constitutional  law  every 
night,  than  I  ever  knew  or  ever  expect  to  know.  The  framers 
of  the  Constitution  provided  that  representation  should  be 
founded  on  principles  of  equality.  It  seems  to  me  the  great 
question  is,  What  are  these  principles  of  equality;  what  was 
meant  by  the  framers  of  the  Constitution  by  principles  of 
equality?  It  seems  to  me  this  whole  subject  is  solved  when 
we  consider  what  they  did  under  that  provision  of  the  Consti- 
tution. They  provided  that  towns  should  be  represented  and 
not  the  people,  that  representation  should  not  be  according 
to  population  but  representation  should  be  by  towns.  Now 
what  further  did  they  do.  Why,  gentlemen,  we  can  ascertain 
the  intention  of  the  framers  of  our  Constitution,  as  I  have 
said  before,  by  considering  what  they  did  under  it. 

It  is  well  known  that  many  of  them,  or  some  of  them  at 
least,  were  gentlemen  that  aided  to  frame  the  Constitution  of 
the  United  States  which  we  all  adore,  and  I  believe  if  there 
was  ever  an  inspired  instrument,  ever  a  document  written  by  • 
the  hand  of  inspiration,  it  is  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  And  those  men,  some  of  those  men  who  helped  to 
frame  that  Constitution  helped  to  frame  the  Constitution  of 
New  Hampshire,  and  it  stands  the  same  now  in  principle  as 
they  framed  it,  as  far  as  this  principle  of  equality  is  concerned 
in  representation. 

What  did  they  mean  by  that.  We  can  ascertain  what  they 
meant  by  it,  by  going  back  and  ascertaining  what  they  did 
under  it.  Their  intention  can  be  ascertained,  and  ascertained 


432     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

only,  by  finding  out  what  they  did  in  construing  the  Consti- 
tution which  they  had  made.  Actions  speak  louder  than 
words.  We  have  too  much  respect  for  those  men  to  think  that 
they  framed  a  Constitution  and  then  turned  around  the  next 
breath  and  violated  it.  They  did  not  do  that.  Then  what 
did  they  do  under  this  Constitution  which  they  say  must 
be  founded  on  principles  of  equality.  It  has  been  stated  here 
what  they  did.  They  said  that  every  town  with  150  votes 
should  have  one  representative,  no  matter  whether  that  town 
was  on  the  Massachusetts  border,  no  matter  whether  it  was  in 
the  wilds  of  Coos,  if  it  had  150  ratable  polls  it  should  have 
one  representative.  There  is  your  equality.  Is  not  that  what 
they  meant  by  equality.  They  went  further  and  they  said  the 
large  towns  ought  to  have  more  representation  than  the  small 
ones,  and  so  they  said  that  every  town  that  had  450  ratable 
polls  should  have  two  representatives.  There  is  no  absolute 
equality  between  towns  that  have  150  ratable  polls  and  have 
one  representative  and  towns  with  450  ratable  polls  and 
two  representatives — no  absolute  equality,  I  say,  but  it  was 
the  equality  that  they  put  into  the  Constitution  when  they 
framed  it.  There  is  an  equality  among  the  towns  having  150 
ratable  polls  and  an  equality  among  towns  that  have  450 
ratable  polls,  and  that  is  the  equality  that  they  established, 
and  that  they  meant  when  they  made  this  constitution. 

Mr.  Chase  of  Bristol — Prior  to  coming  down  here  I  did  not 
have  time  to  examine  this  question  at  all,  yet  it  seemed  from 
•  what  I  had  been  able  to  learn  from  the  public  press  that  if 
the  basis  of  representation  was  to  be  that  of  inhabitants  the 
district  system  would  be  the  proper  system  for  us  to  adopt.  I 
come  from  a  town  which  used  to  have  two  representatives,  but 
for  quite  a  long  time  has  had  but  one,  and  it  has  1,000  sur- 
plus in  population  above  the  600  required.  But  upon  coming 
down  here  and  conferring  with  those  in  my  immediate  vi- 
cinity to  whom  we  would  be  glad  to  give  our  surplus,  I  find 
that  they  take  very  decided  views  in  opposition  to  the  district 
system.  I  believe  that  the  town  sentiment  among  the  towns- 
is  very  strong,  and  I  believe  they  know  their  own  interests. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  433 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  cities  and  large  towns  are  well 
enough  as  they  are.  They  have  large  enough  representation. 
Wh}r,  then,  should  we  attempt  to  force  this  district  system 
upon  the  smaller  towns  which  are  not  asking  for  it  and  do  not 
want  it.  It  seems  to  me  my  duty  in  this  matter  is  plain,  that 
I  cannot  vote  to  sanction  the  coercion  of  the  smaller  towns  by 
such  a  measure  as  has  been  presented  here  in  the  district  sys- 
tem. 

If  the  town  which  I  come  from  is  abundantly  satisfied  with 
one  representative,  although  we  have  almost  enough  for  two, 
why  are  not  the  larger  towns  sufficiently  represented  even  if 
they  also  have  a  surplus  population,  and  especially  the  man- 
ufacturing towns  which  have  a  large  migratory  and  non-vot- 
ing population,  thus  giving  them  an  advantage  over  the 
smaller  towns.  In  our  section  the  proportion  of  voters  to  in- 
habitants is  about  one  to  three,  but  in  large  manufacturing 
towns  I  am  informed  that  it  is  about  one  to  seven.  So  if  the 
basis  were  voters  instead  of  inhabitants,  their  representation 
would  be  very  much  reduced. 

Allusion  has  been  made  to  the  great  saving  that  might  be 
made  by  reducing  the  house.  We  have  some  397  members. 
By  the  proposed  amendments  we  should  have  about  340  or 
350  in  the  house  and  the  senate  inclusive.  That  would  make 
the  magnificent  sum  of  seven  or  eight  thousand  dollars  saved 
per  annum.  It  seems  to  me  there  is  no  great  demand  for 
such  a  change  on  account  of  economy.  I  agree  with  the  sen- 
timent of  the  gentleman  from  Bedford,  Mr.  Woodbury,  that 
there  is  no  demand  for  such  a  change  as  is  proposed  by  the 
district  system,  and  therefore  I  am  not  in  favor  of  it. 

Mr.  Casey  of  Concord — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen:  We 
have  had  this  representation  question  under  discussion  for 
three  days  or  more  and  it  appears  that  we  have  wasted  much 
valuable  time  in  view  of  the  situation  which  seems  to  prevail 
amongst  the  members  of  this  Convention  as  regards  the  town 
and  district  system.  The  advocates  of  the  former  want  to  re- 
tain the  representation  which  they  have  at  present,  with  the 
28 


434     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

exception  of  a  few  of  the  larger  towns,  which,  with  the  cities, 
will  lose  a  great  number  of  their  representatives  according  to 
the  resolutions  offered.  It  does  not  seem  right  or  just  that  it 
should  be  so,  as  according  to  my  view  the  whole  people  should 
be  equally  represented.  While  I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the 
number  should  be  decreased,  the  difficulty  is  how  is  it  to  be 
performed  so  it  will  be  satisfactory  to  all  concerned.  As  it 
looks  to  me  the  towns  and  cities  are  arrayed  against  one  an- 
other, and  each  party  claims  that  the  resolution  of  its  oppo- 
nent will  not  be  ratified  by  the  people  at  the  next  election 
and  the  work  of  this  Convention  will  go  for  naught  so  far  as 
the  representation  question  is  concerned,  and  the  result  would 
be  that  we  would  continue  under  the  present  system.  Some 
two  years  ago  the  state  went  to  a  great  expense  in  refurnishing 
this  hall  for  the  accommodation  of  the  present  number  of  rep- 
resentatives. It  has  been  claimed  by  a  great  many  members 
that  this  state  has  been  governed  wisely  and  well.  If  that  be 
the  case,  why  not  let  well  enough  alone  and  continue  the  old 
representation  with  some  slight  change. 

I  have  listened  with  close  attention  to  the  clear  and  con- 
vincing arguments  presented  by  the  advocates  of  the  district 
system,  showing  how  the  system  would  work  for  the  people 
as  a  whole,  and  the  advantages  which  would  be  derived  from 
such  a  plan. 

Now  the  question  is  would  this  plan  be  satisfactory  to  the 
people?  It  is  proposed  that  the  county  commissioners  or  a 
board  of  special  commissioners  elected  by  the  people  of  the 
county  should  make  the  assignment  of  the  representatives  in 
each  district.  This  plan  might  work  satisfactorily  providing 
that  it  is  a  non-partisan  board,  but  I  have  an  idea  that  the 
board  to  be  elected  would  be  partisan,  in  accordance  with  elec- 
tions as  carried  on  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of  the 
state.  I  witnessed  something  of  this  sort  in  the  legislature  of 
1893.  In  this  city  of  Concord  the  dominant  party  made  an 
addition  of  two  words  for  the  expressed  purpose  of  maintain- 
ing its  supremacy  in  the  other  wards  of  the  city,  as  it  was 
shown  by  the  previous  election  that  they  were  in  danger  of 
losing  the  prestige  which  they  had  held. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  435 

It  has  been  repeated  by  several  members  of  this  Convention 
that  the  state  would  be  saving  fifty  thousand  dollars  every 
two  years  by  the  system  which  is  proposed  by  Mr.  Lyford.  I 
believe  there  is  a  resolution  introduced  here  to  increase  the 
senate  from  twenty-four  to  fifty  members.  Can  this  be  done 
without  expense?  Also  we  must  look  at  the  expense  which 
this  commission  will  incur.  It  appears  to  me  that  the  object 
of  cutting  down  the  representation  is  to  pay  salaried  state 
officials  a  greater  amount  of  money  than  they  receive  at 
present,  in  order  that  they  may  be  able  to  live  in  better  style, 
and  remove  all  chances  of  a  man  of  inadequate  means  from 
ever  aspiring  to  any  higher  point  than  to  be  a  hewer  of  wood 
or  a  drawer  of  water. 

As  a  member  of  this  Convention  I  am  not  in  favor  of  such 
a  plan.  I  was  elected  by  my  constituents  to  come  here  and  do 
what,  in  my  judgment,  is  best  for  their  good.  I  never  had 
the  honor  of  sitting  in  a  body  of  this  kind  before,  as  I  never 
aspired  for  such  a  position  previous  to  the  last  election  and  I 
feel  proud  of  the  place.  It  has  been  said  by  a  great  many 
men  who  have  preceded  me,  that  it  is  an  educational  institu- 
tion and  from  what  I  have  seen  and  heard  in  this  Convention 
I  am  convinced  that  such  is  the  case,  and  I  do  not  want  to 
lessen  my  chances  of  sitting  in  this  hall  at  some  future  time, 
or  to  close  the  place  to  some  other  individual  of  my  sphere  in 
life,  who  may  have  the  ambition  to  become  a  member  of  the 
legislature. 

It  has  been  remarked  by  several  gentlemen  here  that  there 
is  not  room  enough  in  this  hall  to  seat  the  number  of  repre- 
sentatives at  present  and  that  we  would  have  to  enlarge  the 
state  house.  I  do  not  object  to  such  a  scheme,  as  it  might  be 
of  some  benefit  to  me  and  to  members  of  my  craft,  as  I  know 
that  we  have  plenty  of  good  granite  in  this  locality,  and  we 
have  the  men  here  to  perform  the  work. 

A  great  deal  has  been  said  about  the  inequality  of  the  pres- 
ent system.  It  is  claimed  that  the  towns  run  the  legislature 
at  the  present.  It  would  be  more  so  under  the  bills  proposed 
by  Mr.  Barton  and  Mr.  Scott.  In  looking  over  the  laws  of 


436     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

other  New  England  states  I  find  that  in  the  state  of  Connecti- 
cut towns  of  five  or  six  hundred  in  population  send  as  many 
representatives  to  the  general  court  as  the  city  of  New  Haven,, 
with  its  population  of  108,000.  Look  at  the  inequality  in 
that  state  and  compare  it  with  New  Hampshire.  Taking  all 
things  into  consideration  I  have  come  to  the  conclusion  that 
we  are  as  well  governed  as  any  state  in  the  Union  and  possi- 
bly with  as  little  expense.  The  opinion  prevails  that  there 
are  men,  who  come  to  the  legislature,  who  are  rarely  ever 
heard  from;  that  may  be  so,  but  those  very  men  have  their 
eyes  and  ears  open  all  the  time  and  they  are  taking  in  all  that 
is  going  on.  They  are,  as  it  may  appear,  acting  in  the  capacity 
of  detectives  to  see  that  no  deals  or  jobs  are  put  up  whereby 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire  would  be  defrauded,  and  possi- 
bly that  is  the  reason  why  this  state  has  been  so  free  from 
corruption  and  bribery.  Where  the  number  is  small  they  are 
not  so  well  scrutinized  or  watched;  in  that  case  we  hear  of 
rottenness  in  other  states. 

I  am  of  the  opinion  that  the  system  which  prevails  at  pres- 
ent will  be  as  satisfactory  as  any  other  one  we  can  adopt. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Committee:  The  friends  of  perfect  equality  of  repre- 
sentation in  the  house  of  representatives  of  this  state  have 
presented  a  proposition  which  is  to  be  considered  and  the 
Convention  is  shortly  to  vote  upon  the  question  whether  it 
will  adopt  the  district  system  or  the  town  system.  No  one 
has  disputed  the  claim  that  if  the  state  would  bring  itself  to 
adopt  the  district  system  there  would  be  perfect  equality  in 
every  respect.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  admitted  that  the 
present  town  system  is  a  system  of  inequality,  for  the  simple 
reason  that  if  the  town  has  600  inhabitants  it  can  send  one 
representative,  while  it  requires  1,200  for  an  additional  repre- 
sentative. So,  Mr.  Chairman,  if  we  vote  down  the  district 
system  we  are  going  to  vote  for  a  system  of  inequality.  There 
is  nothing  but  the  district  system  under  which  you  can  have 
perfect  equality  and  yet  give  a  representation  to  the  small 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  4S7 

towns  which  have  less  than  600  inhabitants.  In  a  system  of 
attempted  equality  upon  the  town  plan  you  must  give  to  the 
larger  towns  having  over  600  inhabitants  a  representative  for 
^ach  additional  600,  and  this  you  cannot  do  unless  you  make 
the  house  of  representatives  666.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  is  any- 
body willing  to  advocate  that?  Yet  I  would  rather,  in  order 
to  secure  the  principle  of  equality  so  magnificently  stated  by 
the  gentleman  from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Drew,  yesterday  and  yet 
abandoned  by  him  before  he  finished  his  speech,  have  a  house 
of  representatives  of  666  and  take  my  chances  in  it  and  take 
the  chances  of  the  property  interests  and  the  personal  inter- 
ests which  pertain  to  my  city,  than  to  see  the  present  unequal 
town  system  continued. 

Mr.  Chairman,  instead  of  having  this  perfect  equality  se- 
cured we  have  stricken  down  in  our  present  Constitution  266 
of  the  666;  we  have  taken  them  away  from  the  large  towns 
and  cities  thereby  violating  to  this  extent  the  principle  of 
-equality,  and  now  it  is  proposed  in  this  Convention  to  strike 
down  100  more,  to  take  them  from  the  larger  towns  and  the 
cities — to  take  in  all  366  representatives  off  the  principle  of 
perfect  equality  and  yet  to  encourage  the  hope  that  we  can 
get  from  the  people  of  this  state  a  two-thirds  vote  in  favor  of 
that  proposition. 

Mr.  Cross  of  Manchester — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen: 
I  may  find  it  difficult  in  five  minutes  to  say  what  I  would 
like,  but  as  a  representative  from  the  city  of  Manchester  I 
deem  it  my  duty  to  speak  upon  this  question,  and  must  do 
my  duty  as  I  see  it. 

I  have  listened  to  the  remarks  of  the  gentlemen  who  have 
previously  spoken  with  great  pleasure,  but  it  seems  to  me 
they  have  forgotten  some  things.  We  are  not  here  to  estab- 
lish a  legislature  for  education;  we  are  not  here  to  give  these 
men,  John  Smith  and  Jim  Jones  and  others,  a  chance  to  go 
to  the  legislature;  we  are  not  here  for  any  small  thing  of  that 
kind.  There  is  imposed  upon  us  a  duty  to  revise  the  Con- 
stitution so  that  the  state  may  be  represented  in  all  its  parts 
•and  in  all  its  interests  upon  principles  of  equality. 


438     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Many  beautiful  things  have  been  said  about  the  "little  re- 
publics." What  are  the  "little  republics"  in  this  state?  The 
principle  at  the  foundation  of  the  town  system  was  enun- 
ciated on  board  the  Mayflower''  From  that  time,  along  the 
waters  of  the  sea,  along  the  sides  of  the  rivers,  back  in  the 
hills  and  valleys,  our  fathers  established  the  town  system. 
The  town  system — not  a  system  to  send  one  or  ten  representa- 
tives to  the  legislature;  but  an  organization,  call  it  a  "  repub- 
lic "  or  what  you  please,  fully  equipped  with  all  the  machin- 
ery, within  limited  boundaries,  for  self-government,  consist- 
ing of  officers  such  as  moderator,  selectmen,  town  clerk,  treas- 
urer, and  other  minor  officers.  This  is  the  town  system. 
The  town  system  was  not  organized  after  our  separation  from 
Great  Britain,  and  as  a  result  of  our  Declaration  of  Inde- 
pendence, and  the  establishment  of  a  nation  free  of  itself  to 
make  laws  and  become  what  we  claim,  the  only  free  republic 
of  the  world.  Towns  were  organized  substantially  while  we 
were  under  the  rule  of  Great  Britain  as  now.  The  town  offi- 
cers were  the  same  as  now.  Delegates  like  our  representa- 
tives were  elected  to  a  convention  to  enact  laws  for  the  whole 
state,  subject  to  the  approval  of  a  governor  appointed  by  the 
king.  The  town  system  as  such  is  complete  as  a  republic 
without  its  representatives  to  the  general  court,  as  much  so  as 
a  state  ia  complete  without  its  power  to  elect  representatives 
and  senators  to  congress. 

The  representative,  when  elected,  is  not  a  mere  agent  of 
the  town  from  which  he  is  elected.  It  matters  not  whether 
elected  from  Bow,  Croydon,  or  Manchester,  he  is  a  representa- 
tive of  his  town  to  a  certain  extent,  but  in  a  broader  and  bet- 
ter sense  he  is  the  representative  of  the  whole  state  and  of  all 
its  interests.  He  takes  the  oath  of  office  to  support  the 
Constitution  and  to  act  for  the  general  welfare.  If  this  be  so, 
it  matters  not  so  much  from  what  town  or  city  the  representa- 
tive comes;  the  only  important  point  is,  is  he  honest,  capable, 
and  willing  to  act  for  the  general  welfare  ?  If  he  cannot  see 
beyond  the  boundaries  of  his  own  town  and  its  interests,  he  is- 
unfit  to  legislate. 


THUESDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  439 

This  being  the  fact,  as  all  intelligent  men  must  admit,  the 
important  question  is,  How  many  men  shall  be  selected,  and 
upon  what  principle  of  equality  shall  the  number  be  deter- 
mined? A  thousand  men  assembled  to  confer  would  consti- 
tute an  unwieldy  body;  at  times  there  would  be  outbreaks, 
and  but  little  chance  for  calm  reflection  and  conference. 
Five  hundred  men  would  be  too  many.  Four  hundred  would 
be  better,  but  according  to  the  judgment  of  the  people  of 
every  state  in  our  Union,  the  house  of  representatives  should 
not  be  composed  of  more  than  from  100  to  150  men.  No 
matter  what  the  population  of  the  state,  whether  a  hundred 
thousand  or  many  millions,  a  legislative  body  composed  of 
not  more  than  150  members  is  better  than  one  of  400  mem- 
bers in  this  state.  Men  cannot  confer  and  act  calmly  and  dis- 
passionately in  an  assembly  of  1,000  or  of  400.  The  legisla- 
tion of  this  state  has  been  largely,  and  I  believe  mainly,  done 
through  two  or  three  committees  of  ten  members  each.  The 
whole  body  merely  ratifies  or  rejects  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee, and  often  the  whole  body  acts  without  knowledge, 
without  consideration,  and  against  the  interests  of  their  own 
constituents.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  four  fifths  of  the  mem- 
bers of  our  house  of  representatiyes  have  little  or  nothing  to 
do  with  legislation.  They  become  members  for  one  session 
only;  they  take  their  turn,  as  it  is  said;  they  have  no  plan,  no 
purpose,  except  possibly  to  gratify  a  small  ambition  of  being 
a  member  of  the  legislature.  The  legislation  of  this  state  has 
been  substantially  done,  so  far  as  the  house  of  representatives 
is  concerned,  by  less  than  fifty  men. 

If  this  be  so,  of  what  use  is  it  to  argue  that  we  should  allow 
a  representative  body  of  400  or  more,  merely  as  an  educa- 
tional institution?  Schools,  the  study  of  government  and  its 
principles,  observation,  experience,  and  the  business  of  life, 
have  the  educational  value  to  fit  a  man  to  serve  as  the  servant 
of  the  people,  to  make  just  and  beneficent  laws.  The  repre- 
sentative is  a  servant  of  the  state;  by  accepting  the  office  he 
thereby  accepts  it  as  a  sacred  trust,  assuming  that  he  has  the 
knowledge,  experience,  and  ability  to  serve  the  people  for 
their  best  interests. 


440    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
The  Chairman — The  time  of  the  gentleman  has  expired. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — However  much  we  may  differ  in 
our  conclusions  and  from  the  remarks  of  our  eminent  friend 
in  making  his  position  known  in  this  body,  his  long  life,  his 
kindly  words,  his  honorable  record,  are  such  that  I  think  it 
will  give  us  all  pleasure  to  give  the  gentleman  an  opportun- 
ity to  finish  his  remarks,  and  I  move,  Mr.  Chairman,  that  the 
time  of  the  gentleman  for  this  speech  be  extended  five  min- 
utes. 

(The  motion  was  put  by  the  chair  and  prevailed.) 

Mr.  Cross — I  am  obliged  to  you,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gen- 
tlemen. 

I  believe  I  was  talking  of  the  advantages  of  the  legislature 
from  an  educational  point  of  view. 

I  presume  every  member  of  this  Convention  has  been  a 
member  of  the  house  of  representatives,  possibly  for  several 
sessions.  What  real  educational  value  has  it  been  to  you? 
What  have  you  seen  done,  and  what  attempted  to  be  done,  in 
the  New  Hampshire  legislature  for  the  past  fifty  years,  that 
tended  to  educate  you  in  higher  ideas  of  patriotism,  more  re- 
spect for  political  life,  more  confidence  in  the  management  of 
political  affairs,  or  of  interests  corporate  or  individual?  On 
the  whole,  good  laws  have  been  enacted  in  our  state;  but  the 
struggle  for  political  and  commercial  interests,  the  rivalry  of 
men  and  parties,  the  work  of  interested  men  in  the  house  and 
of  the  lobby  outside,  while  they  may  have  opened  the  eyes  to 
some  "things  that  are  dark  and  tricks  that  are  peculiar,"  yet, 
I  submit,  did  not  educate  men  to  higher  standards  of  patriot- 
ism and  nobler  deeds  of  kindness  and  charity.  To  become  a 
member  of  the  legislature  seems  to  have  been  the  dream  of 
the  gentleman  from  Acworth,  for  himself  and  his  sons,  as  he 
has  quietly  followed  his  plow  in  that  excellent  and  happy 
town.  Well,  this  is  at  least  a  harmless  dream;  but,  like  most 
dreams,  the  reality  will  dispel  the  illusion,  and  show  the 
dreamer  that  the  members  of  the  New  Hampshire  legislature 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  441 

have  been  much  like  others  who  stayed  at  home  and  attended 
to  their  own  farming  and  merchandise.  And  I  really  think 
that  of  the  two,  the  man  who  attends  to  his  own  interests  at 
home  in  the  long  run  is  the  happier  and  better  man. 

I  contend  that  the  purpose  of  this  state  in  voting  for  the 
Convention  was  to  reduce  the  number  of  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives to  such  a  number  as,  on  the  whole,  would  best  be 
able  to  act  soberly,  carefully,  and  sagaciously  in  making  laws 
for  the  state  in  years  to  come.  Eepresentatives  are  not 
chosen  as  if  to  a  kindergarten  or  to  a  school;  the  representa- 
tive is,  or  should  be,  sufficiently  educated  so  that  he  may  con- 
sider and  act,  in  making  laws,  for  the  public  good.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Nashua  suggests  that  in  keeping  the  present 
system  of  representation  we  are  following  in  the  steps  of  our 
fathers  who  first  established  the  Constitution.  At  the  adop- 
tion of  the  first  Constitution,  we  had  a  population  of  about, 
80,000,  or  one  fifth  of  the  present  number.  The  population 
of  the  city  of  Manchester  at  present  is  only  less  than  that  of 
the  whole  state  at  that  time  by  20,000.  At  that  time,  most 
of  the  people  were  small  farmers;  legislation  was  simple  and 
easily  understood.  Time  has  wrought  wonderful  changes. 
Then,  a  man  of  $10,000  was  considered  rich;  now,  only  the 
millionaire  is  rich;  then,  a  few  boats  carried  merchandise  on 
the  Merrimack  river,  and  the  produce  of  the  farmers  was  car- 
ried in  small  quantities  by  the  farmers  themselves.  The  pop- 
ulation of  this  state,  if  the  change  should  continue  for  a  few 
years  as  in  the  past,  will  be  mainly  in  the  cities. 

At  the  time  of  the  adoption  of  our  first  Constitution,  and 
for  many  years  after,  legislation  was  limited  to  the  needs  of 
people  born  and  reared  in  this  state.  They  were  alike  in 
their  business,  their  political  and  religious  views.  To-day  a 
large  part  of  our  population  have  come  from  the  ends  of  the 
earth:  Germans,  Irishmen,  Italians,  Jews,  Chinese,  Nor- 
wegians, Swedes,  Turks,  and  others,  all  alike  must  be  reck- 
oned as  fellow-citizens.  Business  has  changed  more  than  the 
population;  and  while  formerly  legislation  concerned  itself 
with  the  interests  of  a  people  engaged  mainly  in  farming,  to- 


442    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

day  it  involves  many  questions  of  finance,  of  manufacturing, 
of  individual  and  corporate  rights,  of  railroads,  banks,  and 
trusts,  and  questions  of  social  relations,  in  great  varieties.  I 
have  not  time  to  suggest  a  tenth  part  of  the  changes  of  the 
past  hundred  years.  One  of  the  most  important  and  perplex- 
ing is  the  government  of  cities.  This  problem  is  upon  us  in 
New  Hampshire  in  a  small  degree,  but  still  sufficiently  to  call 
for  careful  and  .studious  consideration. 

In  determining  the  number  of  representatives  from  the 
towns  and  cities,  numbers  are  of  little  importance;  quality, 
rather  than  quantity  should  be  the  guide.  We  are  urged  to 
give  to  the  country  towns  a  different  basis  of  representation 
from  the  cities;  as  if,  forsooth,  600  people  in  the  town  of 
Goffstown  were  equal  and  should  have  the  same  representa- 
tion as  2,000  in  the  city  of  Nashua. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  time  forbids  me  to  elaborate 
an  argument;  but  I  beg  of  you,  in  considering  this  question 
of  representation,  that  you  will  first  establish  the  principle 
which  pertains  to  our  form  of  government,  that  all  parts  of 
this  state  shall  be  represented  according  to  population,  upon 
principles  of  equality;  that  the  same  number  of  people  shall 
be  entitled  to  a  representative  whether  they  live  in  the  county 
of  Coos  or  the  city  of  Manchester. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough — I  have  but  a  few  words  more  I 
desire  to  say  upon  this  subject  before  the  vote  is  taSen,  and  I 
will  endeavor  to  be  as  brief  as  possible.  All  will  agree  that 
there  seems  to  be  but  two  questions  before  this  Convention — 
the  question  whether  or  not  we  will  adopt  the  district  system 
or  we  will  retain  the  town  system,  and  then  the  basis,  if  this 
Convention  sees  fit  to  retain  the  town  system,  upon  which  the 
proportion  should  be  fixed. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  listened  with  a  great  deal  of  atten- 
tion to  all  the  discussion  that  has  been  had  upon  this  matter, 
It  seems  to  be  the  spirit  of  this  Convention  to  retain  the  old 
town  system,  and  that  I  think  has  been  conceded  by  the 
friends  who  have  presented  the  district  system.  It  was  said 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  443 

that  there  should  be  some  concessions  on  the  part  of  all  in 
order  to  establish  anything  that  will  be  satisfactory  to  the 
people  and  that  we  can  return  to  them  and  which  they  will 
approve. 

I  have  tried  to  arrive  at  this  matter  on  some  lines  that  you 
know  of.  You  know  that  the  bill  I  introduced  provided  for 
600  to  elect  the  first  representative  and  3,000  for  the  second. 
The  gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  had  introduce  1  a 
bill  for  600  for  the  first  representative  and  a  2,000  increase, 
which  I  had  proposed  to  introduce  myself.  Upon  his  intro- 
ducing that  bill  I  introduced  the  bill  I  did.  I  have  talked 
with  the  gentlemen  from  the  city,  and  especially  from  Man- 
chester, and  they  say,  "If  you  retain  this  town  system  you 
must  concede  something  to  us  in  some  way."  I  have  said, 
"Gentlemen,  what  is  the  difficulty?"  "The  difficulty  is  the  in- 
crease of  2,000.  You  take  too  many  representatives  from  our 
city  and  some  of  the  larger  towns."  It  is  no  satisfactory 
answer  to  them  to  say  that  we  take  from  some  one  town 
which  now  has  two  and  under  that  system  would  have  but 
one.  I  said  to  them,  "Then  if  you  are  dissatisfied  with  the 
increase  of  2,000  will  you  make  it  1,800?  If  you  will  do  so  I 
will  go  to  the  country  towns  and  advocate  that  the  increase 
shall  be  made  1,800  instead  of  2,000."  Although  some  ap- 
proved of  that,  thinking  that  the  increase  of  2,000  was  too- 
large,  yet  I  felt  satisfied  that  the  gentlemen  making  that  prop- 
osition would  be  willing  to  make  the  concession.  Now  does 
that  concede  anything.  I  have  looked  it  over  and  found  it 
does.  It  restores  to  Manchester  two  representatives;  to  Ber- 
lin one  representative;  and  I  find  that  it  restores  to  the  town 
of  Claremont,  which  is  hard  hit  by  the  increase  of  2,000,  one 
representative.  It  restores  to  the  city  of  Nashua,  in  Ward 
Nine,  one  representative;  it  restores  seven  representatives  in 
all.  It  increases  the  number  of  this  house  from  317  (which 
is  the  number  upon  the  basis  of  2,000  increase)  to  324. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  have  not  found  in  the  discussion  of  this- 
question  from  first  to  last  that  under  any  system  it  is  deemed 
best  to  reduce  this  house  to  a  figure  very  much  below  300. 


444    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Some  say  325  and  some  say  350.  I  have  told  you  what  I 
thought  the  country  towns  would  be  willing  to  do  in  the  way 
of  concessions  to  the  cities.  But  they  do  not  accept  that;  they 
do  not  come  forward  with  a  spirit  of  concession,  but  they  say 
that  we  should  give  them  all  that  they  ask  for. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua — I  have  but  a  word  to  say,  and 
haven't  but  a  minute  or  two  to  say  it  in  and  know  you  are 
glad  of  that.  I  have  sat  here  and  listened  to  this  debate, 
which  has  extended  from  Coos  to  the  sea,  from  the  hillsides  to 
the  lakes,  and  from  South  Carolina  to  the  Philippines  and 
back  again,  and  wound  up  last  night  with  a  little  skimmed 
milk. 

I  went  home  last  night  and  commenced  to  study  and  see 
what  was  the  real  issue  about  which  we  had  been  listening  to 
all  this  oratory  for  six  or  seven  days,  to  see  why  the  gentle- 
men representing  a  country  town  and  then  a  gentleman  from 
the  city  which  I  have  the  honor  of  coming  from,  would  advo- 
cate certain  measures,  while  others  from  the  country  and  from 
other  cities  would  advocate  still  another  measure.  One  gen- 
tleman said  that  we  were  trying  to  array  the  country  towns 
against  the  cities.  I  do  not  believe  that.  I  believe  that  we 
are  all  here  recognizing  the  principles  of  equality  and  justice. 
I  believe  that  we  are  ready  to  treat  our  neighbor  fairly  and 
justly  and  come  to  a  conclusion  as  near  equality  as  possible. 

I  want  to  remind  my  distinguished  friend,  the  gentleman 
from  Ward  Eight,  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  who  represented 
Ward  Five,  Concord,  in  1876  in  the  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion assembled,  that  he  was  one  of  the  honored  members  from 
Ward  Five,  Concord,  of  that  Convention,  and  he  silently 
assented  to  what  was  done  in  that  Convention,  and  has  lived 
silently  under  the  rule  of  equality  established  in  that  Conven- 
tion since.  I  should  also  like  to  suggest  that  another  distin- 
guished and  learned  friend  of  mine  from  Ward  Four  of  Con- 
cord, Senator  Gallinger,  made  in  the  Convention  of  1876  the 
motion  which  fixed  the  ratio  at  600  for  the  first  representative 
and  1,200  for  the  second.  I  ask  why  the  gentleman  from 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  445 

Concord  has  changed  in  his  position?  Have  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire  changed  ?  No,  gentlemen,  they  have  not.  Let  us 
still  preserve  the  principle  of  the  old  town  system,  at  all 
events  until  the  next  Convention,  and  the  people  of  the  state 
will  ratify  what  we  have  done  here,  and  we  shall  be  content 
under  a  house  of  representatives  which  will  represent  the  peo- 
ple of  New  Hampshire  and  under  a  system  which  will  con- 
tinue at  least  a  quarter  of  a  century  longer,  until  such  time  as 
the  voters  generally  are  ready  and  willing  to  adopt  a  system 
which  is  radically  different  from  the  present  basis  of  repre- 
sentation. , 

Mr.  Harmon  of  Effingham — I  do  not  propose  to  argue  or 
make  a  speech  with  reference  to  this  matter.  I  am  not  a  law- 
yer, nor  the  son  of  a  lawyer,  but  when  any  countryman  rises 
on  this  floor  and  opposes  any  motion  that  has  been  made,  or 
any  resolution  that  has  been  submitted,  on  the  ground  that 
the  judges  of  New  Hampshire  are  corruptible — those  in  whom 
we  trust  our  liberty,  our  property,  and  our  lives — as  an  Amer- 
ican citizen  and  as  a  son  of  New  Hampshire  I  emphatically  re- 
pudiate it.  I  desire  to  place  myself  on  record  and  to  say  that 
I  have  absolute  trust  in  those  we  have  chosen  as  judges  of  our 
supreme  court.  I  believe  they  are  incorruptible,  and  that  our 
rights  would  be  safe  in  their  hands.  I  believe  also,  gentle- 
men, that  all  of  you,  or  most  of  you,  feel  as  I  do.  I  confess 
that  I  could  not  be  silent  under  such  an  insinuation. 

Mr.  Smith  of  New  Hampton — I  have  made  great  effort  to 
get  this  floor  to  say  one  word.  I  come  from  the  little  town  of 
New  Hampton  and  shall  vote  for  the  town  system,  but  I  do 
not  wish  to  feel  that  I  am  voting  for  inequality.  The  ques- 
tion, to  my  mind,  is  this:  Is  it  equality  to  establish  our  basis  of 
representation  upon  the  population  or  inhabitants  of  this 
state.  I  submit  to  you,  gentlemen,  is  it  in  accordance  with 
our  principles  of  voting.  The  gentleman  from  Lancaster,  Mr. 
Drew,  I  think  it  was,  said  that  when  he  voted  he  voted  for 
his  family.  A  man  with  a  family  of  ten  represents  that  ten. 


446    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  people  from  Manchester  and  other  cities  seem  to  feel 
they  have  a  hardship  imposed  upon  them  if  we  base  this  rep- 
resentation upon  .the  town  system.  If  we  go  back  to  1876  we 
see  that  the  basis  of  representation  upon  which  our  fathers 
placed  it  and  up  to  that  time  when  it  was  changed  was  on 
voters  and  not  on  inhabitants.  I  understand,  gentlemen,  that 
ihe  pressure  for  that  change  from  voters  to  inhabitants  came 
from  the  cities,  and  that  the  cities  gained  largely,  very  largely, 
from  the  towns  on  account  of  that  change.  Now  I  feel  that 
there  is  no  sentiment  here  in  favor  of  placing  this  back  on  the 
"basis  of  voters,  and  the  best  we  can  do  is  to  keep  it  where  it 
is  upon  the  basis  of  inhabitants.  My  argument,  however,  is, 
gentlemen,  that  it  is  not  so  great  an  inequality  against  the 
cities  as  has  been  represented  in  this  body. 

Mr.  Cullen  of  Portsmouth — I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man who  has  just  spoken,  how  many  families  of  ten  there  are 
in  his  section  of  the  country. 

Mr.  Smith — I  did  not  make  that  assertion  with  reference  to 
any  part  of  the  country.  I  say  that  where  a  man  has  a  family, 
be  it  large  or  small,  throughout  the  state,  when  he  votes  he 
represents  that  family,  and  the  representation  of  his  town  or 
city  is  based  upon  the  number  of  members  in  that  family.  I 
say  that  by  that  means  the  cities  have  an  advantage  over  the 
country.  There  is  a  smaller  proportion  of  voters  in  the  cities 
than  in  the  country  with  reference  to  the  population. 

The  Chairman — The -hour  for  the  special  order  has  arrived. 
The  first  question  to  come  before  the  Committee  in  the  order 
decided  upon  is  this:  "Shall  the  members  of  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives be  elected  under  the  district  system?"  and  upon 
that  question  a  division  is  called  for. 

A  delegate — I  would  inquire  what  is  to  become  of  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Tilton,  Mr.  Fellows. 

The  Chairman — The  chair  understands  there  are  several 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  447 

questions  to  be  voted  upon  under  the  order,  and  as  the  chair 
has  stated,  this  is  the  first. 

The  chair  will  state  that  all  those  who  are  in  favor  of  elect- 
ing representatives  under  the  district  system  will  vote  "Yes," 
and  those  who  are  opposed  will  vote  "No." 

Upon  division  the  chair  declared  that  135  gentlemen  voted 
in  the  affirmative,  and  245  voted  in  the  negative,  and  the  reso- 
lution did  not  prevail. 

The  Chairman — The  next  proposition  which,  under  the 
order,  comes  before  the  Committee  is  this:  "The  house  of  rep- 
resentatives shall  consist  of  — ; members,"  and  the  chair 

waits  any  motion  for  filling  in  the  blank. 

Mr.  Sloan  of  Haverhill  moved  that  the  number  of  repre- 
sentatives be  fixed  at  100. 

Mr.  Shute  of  Wentw'orth  moved  that  the  number  327  be 
inserted  in  the  blank. 

Mr.  Parker  of  Nashua  moved  that  the  house  consist  of  397 
members. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin  moved  that  the  words  "not  exceed- 
ing 300  members"  be  inserted  in  the  blank. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough — I  move  that  the  house  consist 
of  317  members,  which  is  the  precise  number  which  would  be 
given  on  the  basis  of  600  for  the  first  and  2,000  for  the  in- 
crease. 

The  Chairman — In  the  absence  of  any  motion  to  the  con- 
trary, the  chair  will  take  up  these  motions  in  the  following 
order — the  largest  number  to  be  voted  upon  first  and  then  the 
next  largest  number,  and  so  on  until  some  number  is  fixed 
upon  by  a  vote  of  the  majority  of  the  Committee. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  house  of  representa- 


448     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION, 

tives  consist  of  397  members,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Parker  of 
Nashua,  the  motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote  of  12, 
in  the  affirmative  and  356  in  the  negative. 

The  Chairman — The  next  proposition  is  that  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Wentworth,  Mr.  Shute,  that  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives be  fixed  at  327. 

Mr.  Parker  of  Nashua — I  rise  for  the  purpose  of  inquiry 
and  information.  I  would  like  to  know  whether  this  number 
is  to  be  a  fixed  number.  If  we  vote  for  any  definite  number, 
that  is,  whether  it  shall  be  absolutely  327  not  to  be  increased 
or  decreased,  or  whether  it  is  an  expression  of  opinion  that, 
it  should  be  about  that  number. 

The  Chairman — The  chair  understands  this  is  an  action  in\ 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  anything  done  here  is. 
simply  a  recommendation  to  the  Convention,  and  beyond 
that  it  can  have  but  little  effect. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  house  of  representa- 
tives consist  of  327  members,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Shute  of 
Wentworth,  the  motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote 
of  3  in  the  affirmative  and  348  in  the  negative. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  house  of  representa- 
tives consist  of  317  members,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Scott  of 
Peterborough,  the  motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote 
of  170  in  the  affirmative  and  203  in  the  negative. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  house  of  representa- 
tives consist  of  a  number  not  exceeding  300,"  as  moved  by 
Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin,  the  motion  prevailed  by  a  division 
vote  of  322  in  the  affirmative  and  30  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — To  save  time,  I  move  that  the- 
house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of  not  less  than  300. 

Mr.  Colbath  of  Barnstead — I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.    The- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  449 

point  is,  that  we  have  voted  on  this  proposition  and  have  al- 
ready fixed  the  number  at  300. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  do  not  understand  how  that 
motion  can  be  put. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — As  I  understand  it,  there  are  sev- 
eral motions  fixing  the  number  at  less  than  300  and  we  would 
have  to  vote  on  each  of  them  in  order  to  decide  whether  or  not 
they  shall  be  adopted.  This  motion  that  I  have  made  would 
avoid  the  necessity  of  voting  on  the  others.  I  thought  that 
it  would  save  time  if  we  took  a  vote  upon  my  motion. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover — I  would  rise  and  make  the  inquiry 
whether  if  voting  favorably  on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  it  would  not  in  effect  establish  the  district 
system. 

The  Chairman — That  is  a  matter  of  mathematics  which 
the  gentlemen  can  figure  out  for  themselves.  The  chair  will 
not  undertake  to  decide  it. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — If  this  motion  which  has  been 
suggested  is  voted  upon  I  would  say  that  the  direct  question 
arises  whether  the  vote  would  not  tie  up  the  Committee  and 
members  to  a  certain  number.  I  wish  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin  would  withdraw  his  motion,  and  especially  so  as  I 
understand  that  there  is  only  one  number  more  that  has  been 
mentioned  below  300. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — On  the  understanding  that  there 
is  only  one  motion  for  a  smaller  number,  I  will  withdraw  my 
motion. 

The  Chairman — The  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Frank- 
lin is  withdrawn,  and  the  chair  will  state  that  the  only  prop- 
osition now  before  the  Committee  is  that  of  the  gentleman 
from  Haverhill,  Mr.  Sloan,  that  the  number  of  the  house  of 
representatives  shall  be  fixed  at  100  members. 


450    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter — For  the  sake  of  testing  this  question 
whether  this  Committee  is  of  the  opinion  that  the  number  be 
fixed  reasonably  near  300,,  I  will  move  that  we  now  take  the 
sense  of  this  Committee  on  the  motion  that  the  house  of  rep- 
resentatives consist  of  not  less  than  280  members. 

The  Chairman — The  chair  will  state  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Exeter,  that  it  is  the  sense  of  the  Committee 
that  the  house  of  representatives  shall  consist  of  not  less  than 
280  members. 

Mr.  Parker  of  Nashua — I  hope  that  the  motion  will  not 
prevail.  There  is  but  one  number  additional  to  be  voted 
upon,  and  I  think  we  should  have  gone  along  and  voted  upon 
that. 

The  Chairman — The  chair  will  be  obliged  to  rule  that  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Fuller,  is  in  order,, 
and  unless  he  is  otherwise  directed  by  the  house  the  motion 
will  be  stated. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  rise  to  this  point  of  order. 
The  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Haverhill  being  first 
made,  whether  or  not  it  should  not  be  first  voted  upon.  My 
suggestion  is  that  a  vote  should  first  be  taken  on  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Haverhill,  that  being  first  made,  then 
on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter;  Mr.  Fuller, 
which  I  believe  is  a  practical  and  sensible  one,  for  this  reason, 
when  the  Convention  has  voted  upon  that,  having  already 
voted  upon  the  300  proposition  the  Convention  will  under- 
stand that  the  Committee  has  recommended  something  be- 
tween the  two. 

The  Chairman — The  chair  will  state  that  he  will  be  obliged 
to  put  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Fuller, 
unless  he  withdraws  it  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter — At  the  suggestion  of  the  chair  I 
withdraw  the  motion. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  451 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  house  of  representa- 
tives consist  of  100  members,,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Sloan  of  Ha- 
verhill,  the  motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote  of  12 
in  the  affirmative  and  352  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter  renewed  his  motion  that  the  house  of 
representatives  shall  consist  of  not  less  than  280  members, 
and  the  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  house  of  representa- 
tives consist  of  not  less  than  280  members/'  as  moved  by  Mr. 
Fuller  of  Exeter,  the  motion  prevailed  by  a  division  vote  of 
322  in  the  affirmative  and  26  in  the  negative. 

The  Chairman — The  Committee,  in  the  absence  of  other 
votes,  will  recommend  to  the  Convention  that  the  number  of 
the  house  of  representatives  shall  be  fixed  at  a  number  not 
exceeding  300  and  not  less  than  280.  In  the  absence  of  any 
motion  to  the  contrary,  the  chair  will  proceed  to  the  consid- 
eration of  the  next  question  under  the  special  order,  which  is, 
"The  number  of  inhabitants  required  for  the  first  representa- 
tive under  the  town  system  shall  be ,  and  the  number 

required  for  a  second  representative  shall  be ." 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport  moved  that  the  first  blank  shall  be 
filled  by  inserting  600,  and  the  second  blank  by  inserting 
2,000. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua  moved  that  the  first  blank  be  filled 
by  inserting  900  and  the  second  blank  by  inserting  1,800. 

Mr.  Pressler  of  Keene  moved  that  the  first  blank  be  filled 
by  inserting  800  and  the  second  blank  by  inserting  1,600. 

Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester  moved  that  the  first  blank  be 
filled  by  inserting  1,000  and  the  second  blank  by  inserting 
2,000. 

Mr.  Sullivan  of  Manchester  moved  that  the  first  blank  be 
filled  by  inserting  the  number  800  and  the  second  by  insert- 
ing the  number  2,000. 


452     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton  moved  that  the  first  blank  be  filled 
by  inserting  the  number  1,000  and  the  second  blank  by  in- 
serting the  number  1,000. 

Mr.  Hadley  of  Temple  moved  that  the  first  blank  be  filled 
by  inserting  the  number  600  and  the  second  by  inserting  the 
number  2,500. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin  moved  that  the  first  blank  be  filled 
by  inserting  the  number  1,370  and  the  second  by  inserting 
the  number  1,370. 

Mr.  Clough  of  Nashua — I  will  ask  the  chair  if  it  will  be 
possible  for  him  to  arrange  these  numbers  so  that  we  can  vote 
upon  one  number  at  a  time,  and  not  upon  the  couplets. 

The  Chairman — I  have  stated  the  resolution  as  it  came  to 
the  Committee  from  the  Convention,  and  the  chair  has  no 
power  to  change  the  order.  I  understand  from  this  resolu- 
tion that  it  will  be  necessary  to  vote  upon  the  numbers  in 
couplets,  as  the  motions  are  made.  I  do  not  see  how  they 
can  be  divided. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — With  due  deference  to  the  inti- 
mation of  the  chair,  I  wish  to  say  that  it  was  not  my  impres- 
sion that  in  filling  the  blanks  it  would  be  necessary  to  fill  all 
the  blanks  in  any  one  resolution  at  once. 

The  Chairman — The  chair  will  read  the  resolution — "The 
number  of  inhabitants  required  for  the  first  representative 
under  the  town  system  shall  be ,  and  the  number  re- 
quired for  a  second  representative  shall  be  ."  It  is 

all  one  sentence,  and  I  do  not  see  how  it  can  be  divided. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  am  very  strongly  of  the  opin- 
ion that  there  is  no  rule  in  any  parliamentary  body  when 
there  are  blanks  in  any  one  resolution  to  be  filled,  that  they 
should  all  be  filled  on  one  motion,  or  at  one  time. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  453 

The  Chairman — If  there  is  a  motion  made  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Nashua,  Mr.  Clough,  that  the  first  number  in  the 
motions  to  fill  the  first  blank  be  taken  up  to  be  voted  upon 
first,  the  chair  will  entertain  the  motion  and  submit  it  to  the 
Committee. 

Mr.  Clough  of  Nashua — I  move  that  the  votes  be  divided 
and  the  blanks  filled  separately;  that  the  first  number  in  the 
various  motions  be  voted  upon  first  for  the  purpose  of  filling 
the  first  blank,  and  the  second  number  voted  upon  afterwards 
for  the  purpose  of  filling  the  second  blank. 

(The  motion  of  Mr.  Clough  being  stated,  prevailed.) 

Mr.  Lambert  of  Manchester — I  move  that  the  largest  num- 
ber be  taken  up  first. 

The  Chairman — In  the  absence  of  objections  the  chair  will 
take  them  in  that  order. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  the  first  representative,  under  the  town 
system,  be  1,370,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin,  the 
motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote  of  46  in  the  af- 
firmative and  301  in  the  negative. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  the  first  representative,  under  the  town 
system,  be  1,000,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester  and 
Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton,  the  motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  di- 
vision vote  of  54  in  the  affirmative  and  296  in  the  negative. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  the  first  representative,  under  the  town 
system,  be  900,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua,  the  mo- 
tion was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote  of  69  in  the  affirma- 
tive and  293  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  desire  to  put  a  question  to  the 


454     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

chair,  and  I  desire  that  the  committee  should  understand 
what  the  question  is  before  it,  because  I  understand  from 
several  members  that  the  way  they  wish  to  vote  would  be 
influenced  somewhat  by  the  consequences — for  instance, 
whether  the  number  is  to  be  arbitrarily  fixed.  If  the  number 
is  fixed  at  800  here,  is  the  question  still  open  for  the  applica- 
tion of  the  number  involved  in  the  Mitchell  bill  of  local 
option,  which  would  permit  the  towns  disfranchised  or  ex- 
cluded under  the  800  basis  to  voluntarily  associate  themselves 
together  for  representation  until  they  had  reached  the  neces- 
sary 800.  That  is  the  question  I  put.  It  would  certainly  in- 
fluence my  vote. 

The  Chairman — The  chair  will  state  that  his  understand- 
ing is  this,  that  the  vote  taken  in  this  Committee  is  simply 
a  recommendation  to  the  Convention,  and  in  Convention 
any  one  may  make  any  amendment  they  desire. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — I  would  like  to  inquire  if  the 
several  votes  here  to-day  for  the  town  system,  and  for  the 
numbers  fixed  for  the  house  and  for  the  inhabitants  for  the 
several  representatives,  will  all  be  referred  to  a  special  com- 
mittee or  not? 

The  Chairman — That  will  depend  on  the  action  of  the 
Convention.  This  Committee  will  make  recommendation  to 
the  Convention  and  the  Convention  will  take  any  action  that 
it  sees  fit. 

Mr.  Sanders  of  Derry  moved  that  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants for  the  first  representative  be  fixed  at  700. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  the  first  representative,  under  the  town 
system,  be  800,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Pressler  of  Keene  and  Mr. 
Sullivan  of  Manchester,  the  motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  di- 
vision vote  of  156  in  the  affirmative  and  205  in  the  negative. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  455 

tants  required  for  the  first  representative,  under  the  town 
•-system,  be  700,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Sanders  of  Derry,  the 
motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote  of  122  in  the  af- 
firmative and  204  in  the  negative. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  the  first  representative,  under  the  town 
system,  be  600,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Barton  of  Newport,  the 
motion  prevailed  by  a  division  vote  of  223  in  the  affirmative 
and  131  in  the  negative. 

The  Chairman — In  the  absence  of  any  motion,  the  chair 
will  proceed  to  the  consideration  of  the  second  number  in  the 
resolution.  The  proposition  submitted  to  the  Committee 
under  the  order  is  as  follows:  "The  number  of  inhabitants 
required  for  the  first  representative  under  the  town  system 
shall  be  600,  and  the  number  required  for  a  second  repre- 
sentative shall  be  -  — ."  There  are  several  propositions 
upon  the  number  to  be  placed  in  the  blank,  and  proceeding 
as  we  have  done  before,  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
from  Temple,  Mr.  Hadley,  comes  first,  that  the  number  re- 
quired for  the  second  representative  shall  be  2,500. 

Mr.  Hadley  of  Temple — I  withdraw  my  motion  that  the 
number  for  a  second  representative  shall  be  fixed  at  2,500, 
and  request  that  the  number  2,000,  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Manchester,  Mr.  Sullivan,  shall  prevail. 

Mr.  Lord  of  Manchester  moved  that  the  number  be  fixed  at 
1,200. 

Mr.  Pike  of  Haverhill — If  it  is  in  order,  I  move  that  we 
insert  such  number  as  will  make  the  number  of  representa- 
tives in  the  house  between  280  and  300,  as  has  been  voted. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough — I  wish  to  make  a  motion  that 
the  number  for  a  second  representative  be  made  3,000,  as 
that  comes  exactly.  On  the  basis  of  600  for  the  first  repre- 


456     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

sentative  it  would  give  us  286  in  the  house,  on  the  basis  of 
3,000  for  a  second  representative. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  submit  a  question  of  order,, 
whether  the  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Haverhill,. 
Mr.  Pike,  is  in  order.  I  think  it  is  not.  I  think  the  intention 
of  the  Convention  was  to  have  this  second  number  fixed. 

The  Chairman — The  chair  will  rule  that  votes  shall  be- 
taken upon  the  figures,  and  if  the  figures  are  all  voted  down,, 
the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Haverhill,  Mr.  Pike,  can 
be  entertained. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  a  second  representative,  under  the  town 
system,  be  3,000,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough, 
the  motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote  of  36  in  the- 
affirmative  and  266  in  the  negative. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  a  second  representative,  under  the  town 
system  be  2,000,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester  and 
Mr.  Sullivan  of  Manchester,  the  motion  was  declared  lost  on  a 
division  vote  of  148  in  the  affirmative  and  158  in  the  nega- 
tive. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  a  second  representative,  under  the  town 
system,  be  1,800,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua,  the 
motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote  of  154  in  the  af- 
firmative and  176  in  the  negative. 

A  delegate — It  seems  to  me  that  the  Committee  is  at 
sea.  We  have  already  passed  the  number  by  which  the  house- 
of  representatives  can  consist  of  between  280  and  300,  and 
any  further  voting  upon  the  second  number  seems  a  waste  of 
time. 

The  Chairman — That  seems  correct.    Inasmuch  as  we  have 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  457 

established  the  number  for  the  size  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives as  between  280  and  300.,  I  would  say  that  we  have 
already  rejected  propositions  which  will  bring  the  house  any- 
where near  that. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  I 
object  to  debate  either  on  the  floor  or  from  the  chair. 

The  Chairman — The  chair  rules  that  the  point  is  well 
taken. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  a  second  representative,  under  the  town 
system,  be  1,600,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Pressler  of  Keene,  the 
motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote  of  31  in  the  af- 
firmative and  252  in  the  negative. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — I  withdraw  my  motion  that  the 
second  number  be  fixed  at  1,370. 

The  Chairman — We  now  recur  to  the  proposition  of  the 
gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Lord,  that  the  number  for 
the  second  representative  be  fixed  at  1,200. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  rise  simply  to  ask  the  chair  if 
this  motion  prevails  if  it  does  not  leave  us  just  where  we 
started? 

The  Chairman — If  it  were  not  for  the  fear  of  indulging  in 
debate,  the  chair  would  say  that  it  did. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  a  second  representative,  under  the  town 
system,  be  1,200,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Lord  of  Manchester,  the 
motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote  of  77  in  the  af- 
firmative and  226  in  the  negative. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  a  second  representative,  under  the  town 


458    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

system,  be  1,000,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton,  the 
motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  division  vote  of  8  in  the  affirm- 
ative and  254  in  the  negative. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  number  of  inhabi- 
tants required  for  a  second  representative,  under  the  town 
system,  be  such  in  number  as  will  make  the  number  of  the 
house  of  representatives  not  more  than  300  nor  less  than 
280,"  as  moved  by  Mr.  Pike  of  Haverhill,  the  motion  pre- 
vailed by  a  division  vote  of  247  in  the  affirmative  and  60  in 
the  negative. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  move  that  the  Committee  arise, 
report,  and  recommend  to  the  Convention  the  various  propo- 
sitions as  they  have  been  voted  upon,  with  a  further  recom- 
mendation that  the  whole  subject  of  representation  be  sent  by 
the  Convention  to  the  Standing  Committee  on  Legislative  De- 
partment, and  the  motion  prevailed. 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester,  chairman  of  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole,  reported  that  the  Committee  had  been  in  session, 
having  had  under  consideration  the  subject  of  representation 
in  the  house  of  representatives,  and  had  recommended  to  the 
Convention  that  the  house  of  representatives  be  fixed  at  a 
number  not  exceeding  300  members  nor  less  than  280  mem- 
bers; that  the  number  of  inhabitants  required  for  the  first 
representative  shall  be  600  and  the  number  required  for  a 
second  representative  shall  be  such  a  number  as  will  provide  a 
house  of  representatives  of  not  less  than  280  members  nor 
more  than  300,  and  further  recommend  that  the  whole  sub- 
ject of  representation  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  recommendation  of 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  459 

the  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  that  the  whole 
subject  of  representation  be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department  with  the  recommendations  of  the 
Committee/7  be  adopted,  the  affirmative  prevailed  on  a  viva 
voce  vote. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  ask  unanimous  consent  that 
any  pairs  that  have  existed  with  reference  to  the  preceding 
votes  may  be  handed  to  the  presiding  officer  and  entered 
upon  the  record.  I  ask  this  because  the  gentleman  from  Bed- 
ford, Mr.  Woodbury,  was  very  anxious  to  vote,  but  was  not 
able  to  be  present  and  was  paired. 

The  President — The  chair  will  state  that  nothing  can  go 
upon  the  record  of  the  Convention  except  what  transpires  in 
the  Convention.  The  votes  were  taken  in  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole.  The  chair  will  not  order  record  of  pairs  to  be 
placed  on  the  record  except  by  vote  of  the  Convention,  but 
the  chair  will  entertain  a  motion. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  will  modify  my  suggestion. 
I  ask  to  have  it  appear  that  the  gentleman  from  Bedford,  Mr. 
Woodbury,  was  detained  by  business  which  he  could  not 
avoid,  and  was  paired. 

Upon  motion  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
took  a  recess  until  three  o'clock. 

(Eecess.) 

Upon  reassembling,  leave  was  granted  the  Committee  on 
Mileage  to  sit  during  the  afternoon. 

Mr.  McAllister  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

Resolved,  That  Nelson  W.  Paige  of  Ward  Ten,  Manchester, 
he  allowed  and  paid  from  the  appropriation  for  this  Conven- 
tion the  sum  of  $20  for  expenses  incurred  in  defending  his 
right  to  his  seat  as  a  delegate  in  this  Convention. 


460    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
The  question  being  stated,  the  resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Blodgett,  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  Judicial 
Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Hoi- 
man  of  Hillsborough  empowering  the  general  court  "to  im- 
.  pose  and  levy  assessments,  rates,  and  taxes  upon  the  estates  of 
deceased  persons,  or  upon  bequests,  devises,  or  inheritances, 
which  said  rates  and  taxes  may  be  graded  or  proportioned  in 
such  way  or  manner  as  such  general  court  may  direct,  but  said 
rates  and  taxes  shall  never  exceed  ten  per  cent,  of  said  estates, 
bequests,  devises,  or  inheritancs,"  reported  the  same  with  the 
following  resolution: 

Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  the  same. 
The  report  was  accepted,  and  the  resolution  adopted. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Mr.  President,  I  move  that  the 
Convention  resolve  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to 
consider  the  resolution  for  a  declaration  against  trusts,  which 
was  introduced  by  myself,  and  was  made  a  special  order  after 
the  conclusion  of  the  question  of  representation. 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner — I  ask  for  the  special  order  upon 
woman's  suffrage,  which  was  made  a  special  order  for  eleven 
o'clock  this  forenoon. 

The  President — The  chair  will  say  to  the  gentleman  from 
Warner,  Mr.  Thompson,  that  the  resolution  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  on  the  subject  of 
trusts  was  made  the  special  order  for  Tuesday  at  eleven 
o'clock,  and  by  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Chandler  with  unani- 
mous consent,  that  particular  special  order  was  made  subject 
to  the  order  with  reference  to  the  consideration  of  the  resolu- 
tions relating  to  representation,  and  the  chair  thinks  that 
the  parliamentary  situation  is  such  that  the  trust  subject  hav- 
ing yielded  to  the  other,  would  come  in  as  a  special  order 
in  the  place  of  the  suffrage  amendment  which  was  made  a 
special  order  for  this  forenoon;  but  it  may  be  that  the  gentle- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  461 

man  from  Warner  and  the  gentleman  from  Concord  by  a  short 
conference  could  arrange  the  matter  in  a  way  satisfactory  to 
both. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — If  I  could  be  sure  that  the  dis- 
cussion on  the  question  of  woman's  suffrage  would  not  take 
a  long  time,  personally  I  should  be  willing  to  waive  a  prior 
•consideration  on  the  resolution  against  trusts.  But  I  feel 
in  justice  to  myself  and  to  other  parties  who  desire  to  speak 
upon  this  subject,  that  it  is  my  duty  to  insist  upon  the  ques- 
tion of  trusts  being  taken  up  and  proceeded  with  this  after- 
noon. 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner — Mr.  President,  by  arrangement 
with  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  I  would  say 
that  I  do  not  understand  that  it  is  the  intention  of  this  Con- 
vention to  discuss  the  question  of  woman's  suffrage  at  any 
great  length,  and  I  would  therefore  move  that  the  discussion 
of  that  question  be  limited  to  half  an  hour,  and  that  at  the 
end  of  that  time  the  matter  shall  come  up  for  vote. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner  is  stated  by  the 
chair. 

Upon  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Pike  of  Haverhill,  that 
the  speeches  on  the  subject  be  limited  to  five  minutes,  which 
amendment  was  accepted  by  Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner,  the 
motion  was  put  by  the  chair  and  was  carried. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  am  satisfied  that  this  question 
relating  to  the  rights  of  woman's  suffrage  should  not  drift 
through  this  Convention.  I  am  also  satisfied  that  the  propo- 
sition would  be  voted  down  if  submitted  to  the  Convention  on 
a  thirty-minute  discussion.  In  order  that  the  interests  which 
present  this  question  for  our  consideration  should  not  be  left 
altogether  without  a  remedy,  I  offer  the  following  amendment 
to  the  resolution  submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Warner. 

The  President — The  chair  is  obliged  to  rule  that  the 
amendment  is  too  late  unless  the  other  motion  is  reconsid- 
ered. 


462    JOTJKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner — I  would  like  to  suggest  that  the 
gentleman  from  Littleton  have  his  proposed  amendment  read 
to  the  house. 

Secretary  reads  as  follows: 

"The  legislature  is  authorized  to  suhmit  to  the  people  the 
question  whether  suffrage  shall  be  conferred  upon  women, 
and  whenever,  upon  such  submission,  two  thirds  of  the  legal 
voters  and  two  thirds  of  the  native  born  and  naturalized 
women  of  the  state  above  twenty-one  years  of  age  shall  have 
voted  in  the  affirmative  upon  such  question,  then  any  subse- 
quent legislature  may  confer  full  suffrage  upon  women." 

Upon  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  the  Convention 
resolved  itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  purpose 
of  taking  up  the  discussion  of  the  woman's  suffrage  amend- 
ment under  the  conditions  fixed  by  the  Convention. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster  in  the  chair.) 

The  Chairman — Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  we  are  ready 
to  proceed  with  the  discussion  of  the  resolution  that  was  be- 
fore the  Convention  which  the  clerk  will  read. 

(Clerk  reads  resolution  of  Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner.) 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Convention:  It  is  proper  for  me  to  say  something  at 
this  time  if  I  have  the  courage  of  my  convictions.  I  regret 
that  some  more  distinguished  member  of  this  Convention  is 
not  occupying  the  position  of  mover  of  this  important  resolu- 
tion. I  owe  it  to  this  Convention  to  tell  why  I  presented  to 
this  body  the  memorial  of  the  officers  of  the  Woman's  Suf- 
frage association  of  New  Hampshire.  In  common  with  you 
all,  I  received,  prior  to  this  Convention,  a  circular  letter  ask- 
ing if  I  believed  in  the  enfranchisement  of  women.  I 
answered  yes,  and  hastily  and  without  thought  of  the  conse- 
quences I  added  this:  "Forty  years  ago  I  joined  the  Union 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  463 

army  and  served  three  years  that  the  slaves  might  be  free — 
four  years  ago  I  volunteered  to  help  free  the  Cubans  from  the 
tyranny  of  Spain  and  served  a  year,  and  I  am  ready  now  as  a 
delegate  to  the  Constitutional  Convention  to  help  free  the 
women  of  New  Hampshire  from  the  injustice  of  taxation 
without  representation  and  that  they  shall  no*  longer  be 
classed  with  idiots,  the  criminal,  and  the  pauper."  The  offi- 
cers of  the  Woman's  Suffrage  association  of  New  Hampshire, 
believing  I  was  honest  in  this  statement,  came  to  this  hall  last 
week,  and  though  I  was  a  stranger  to  them  asked  my  assist- 
ance. Had  I,  fearing  ridicule  or  ancient  prejudice,  refused  it, 
I  should  be  despicable;  should  I  now  withhold  my  support  I 
should  be  a  coward,  and  no  man  worthy  to  wear  this  button  of 
the  Grand  Army  of  the  Eepublic  could  do  any  less  than  I  am 
doing  to-day,  when  I  go  out  upon  this  skirmish  line,  trusting 
that  a  majority  of  this  Convention  will  support  me  in  asking 
that  this  proposed  amendment  to  article  twenty-seven,  part 
second,  of  the  Constitution,  which  will,  if  ratified,  enfranchise 
the  women  of  New  Hampshire,  be  submitted  to  the  legal 
voters  of  this  state  for  their  action. 

I  believe  in  the  enfranchisement  of  women  because  it  is 
right,  because  it  is  equitable  and  just.  Taxation  without  rep- 
resentation is  tyranny,  and  the  largest  contingent  at  Bunker 
Hill  came  from  New  Hampshire  and  there  sealed  that  proposi- 
tion with  their  blood. 

For  days  we  have  listened  to  dissertations  and  learned  ora- 
tions on  equality,  and  times  without  number  we  have  had 
quoted  to  us  from  article  nine,  "There  shall  be  in  the  legisla- 
ture of  the  state  a  representation  of  the  people  founded  on 
the  principles  of  equality."  In  the  town  of  Warner,  where  I 
reside,  we  have  a  village  precinct;  in  that  precinct  there  are 
101  homes  or  homesteads.  Fifty- three  of  these  homesteads 
are  owned  by  women,  and  forty-eight  are  owned  by  men;  the 
minority  vote  and  have  representation;  the  majority  cannot 
vote  and  have  no  representation,  except  as  they  are  counted 
with  children  and  other  non-voting  creatures.  Is  this  equal- 
ity? Where  did  the  men  of  New  Hampshire  learn  equality? 


464     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Down  in  the  yard  of  this  house  stands  a  noble  statue  of  its 
greatest  expounder,  Daniel  Webster;  near  by  is  Gen.  John 
Stark,  who  fought  for  it,  and  at  the  feet  of  John  P.  Hale  of 
the  Old  Guard,  let  us  relearn  the  lesson  he  so  nobly  taught, 
that  all  men  are  free  and  equal.  When  the  name  of  nearly 
every  man  in  this  house  is  lost  in  the  oblivion  of  time  that  of 
John  P.  Hale  will  endure  principally  because  of  his  labors  in 
the  cause  of  freedom.  As  a  sequence  to  that  noble  effort  the 
colored  man  has  the  franchise,  although  abridged  in  some 
states  in  open  defiance  of  the  Constitution  of  the  United 
States.  Are  not  the  women  of  New  Hampshire  as  well  fitted 
for  enfranchisement  as  the  negro? 

I  yield  to  no  man  in  my  love  of  equality,  and  as  I  look  over 
this  Convention  I  can  see  where  I  learned  the  beneficent  les- 
son. I  have  learned  much  from  that  most  distinguished  mem- 
ber of  this  body,  the  Hon.  William  E.  Chandler  of  Concord, 
whose  transcendent  ability  as  a  champion  of  human  rights 
and  the  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law  has  had  my  heart- 
iest admiration  for  forty  years.  I  learned  much  of  the  worth 
of  free  institutions  and  equal  rights  from  my  old  army  com- 
rade sitting  here,  who,  forty  years  ago,  come  next  Saturday, 
the  memorable  13th  day  of  December,  1862,  marched  with 
the  Eleventh  regiment  of  New  Hampshire  Volunteers  across 
the  pontoon  bridge  at  Fredericksburg  into  one  of  the  bloodiest 
battles  of  the  Civil  war.  I  refer  to  my  old  comrade,  the  Hon. 
James  F.  Briggs  of  Manchester.  As  I  have  looked  into  the 
face  of  that  profound  orator  and  gallant  soldier,  Col.  Henry 
0.  Kent  of  Lancaster,  and  have  noticed  here  from  day  to  day 
the  many  men  who  wear  the  button  of  the  Grand  Army,  I 
have  learned  anew  the  old  lesson,  often  conned,  that  freedom, 
justice,  and  equal  rights  are  the  most  beneficent  principles  to 
live  for,  and,  if  necessary,  to  die  for.  Many  made  the  supreme 
sacrifice  in  those  old  days,  emphasizing  as  nothing  else  can 
the  value  of  our  institutions. 

I  have  been  glad  to  sit  near  the  Hon.  Cyrus  H.  Little  of 
Manchester,  not  because  he  ranks  at  the  head  of  the  younger 
generation  as  an  orator  and  statesman,  but  because  of  old 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  465 

association  with  his  gallant  father,  who  was  an  officer  of  the 
regiment  to  which  I  had  the  honor  to  belong  and  who  laid 
down  his  life  on  the  field  of  battle  that  this  nation  might  live. 
A  large  number  of  men  and  women  of  this  state  ask  at  your 
hands  the  privilege  of  having  submitted  to  the  voters  of  this 
state  an  amendment  looking  to  the  enfranchisement  of 
women.  That  I  believe  in  it  may  not  influence  anyone,  but  I 
ask  your  attention  to  a  few  authorities.  That  great  scholar, 
statesman,  and  patriot,  who  ten  days  ago  was  a  living  entity, 
and  who  lies  now  in  the  embrace  of  mother  earth  in  the  state 
he  loved  so  well,  the  Hon.  Thomas  B.  Reed,  had  only  kindly 
words  for  the  enfranchisement  of  women.  In  a  circular  sent 
to  every  member  of  this  Convention  we  find  noble  words  en- 
dorsing woman  suffrage  from  such  men  as  the  Hon.  James  0. 
Lyford,  ex-Senator  Henry  W.  Blair,  the  Hon.  H.  H.  Metcalf, 
lecturer  of  the  New  Hampshire  State  Grange*,  the  Rev.  Charles 
S.  Murkland,  president  of  our  agricultural  college,  the  Hon. 
Henry  F.  Hollis  of  Concord,  the  Hon.  Sherman  E.  Burroughs 
of  Manchester,  Dr.  Klock,  principal  of  the  State  Normal 
school,  Col.  Henry  B.  Quinby  of  Lakeport,  the  Rev.  Dr.  Dan- 
iel C.  Robertsi  of  Concord,  and  many  others.  Where  in 
New  Hampshire  can  you  find  safer  leaders  of  public  thought 
and  action?  One  more  New  Hampshire  man  who  endorsed 
woman  suffrage  is  he  who  next  month  the  great  Republican 
party  of  New  Hampshire  will  unanimously  elect  for  his  third 
term  in  the  United  States  Senate,  that  statesman  and  true 
friend  of  every  best  interest  of  New  Hampshire,  the  Hon. 
Jacob  H.  Gallinger,  our  senior  senator.  One  other  distin- 
guished advocate  of  the  enfranchisement  of  women,  who,  in 
his  writings  and  public  speeches  and  from  high  official  station, 
has  spoken  in  no  uncertain  tongue,  is  he  who,  as  police  com- 
missioner of  the  great  city  of  New  York  and  as  governor  of 
that  great  state,  did  so  much  to  raise  political  thought  to  a 
higher  level;  he  who  in  those  days  when  Cuba  reached  out  her 
hands,  supplicating  our  aid,  left  his  luxurious  quarters  in  the 
navy  department  at  Washington  and  gallantly  led  his  regi- 
ment of  Rough  Riders  at  San  Juan  hill;  he  believes  in  equal- 
30 


466     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ity  for  women;  he  who,  when  our  beloved  McKinley  laid  down 
the  cares  of  life  and  of  state,  took  up  the  scepter  of  the  presi- 
dency and  has  wielded  it  so  admirably  and  so  well  that  the 
name  and  fame  of  the  United  States  has  received  new  glory 
in  every  country  of  the  earth;  a  man  who,  courting  neither 
fear  nor  favor,  strenuously  advocates  the  enfranchisement  of 
women,  Theodore  Eoosevelt,  president  of  the  United  States. 

Mr.  Cummings  of  Enfield — I  did  not  come  to  this  Conven- 
tion with  the  idea  of  making  any  speech  on  any  subject  unless 
it  were  this  which  is  now  before  the  house.  For  many  years 
I  have  been  in  favor  of  giving  women  the  suffrage,  and  the 
first  and  foremost  reason  for  that  is  because  it  is  her  natural 
and  inalienable  right;  because  she  is  in  all  respects  the  equal 
of  man,  and,  with  the  speaker  who  has  just  sat  down,  I  will 
say  that  I  have  never  known  any  good  reason  for  withholding 
this  right  from  her.  Upon  principles  of  equity  and  equality 
I  cannot  understand  how  women,  one  half  of  the  citizens  of 
this  state,  should  be  denied  the  right  to  express  themselves 
upon  any  question  of  money,  or  any  other  question  that  may 
come  up.  I  believe  every  woman  of  proper  age  has  a  sacred 
right  to  vote,  has  as  good  a  right  to  vote  as  you  or  I,  sir,  and 
we  have  no  right  to  deprive  her  of  it.  She  stands  to-day  in 
the  category  of  the  minor,  the  pauper,  the  idiot,  and  others- 
that  for  some  reason  are  deprived  of  suffrage.  I  do  not  wish 
my  wife,  who  in  all  respects  is  my  equal,  to  stand  and  be  class- 
ified in  such  a  category  as  that.  I  desire  her  to  be  represented 
and  to  be  able  to  express  her  own  views  on  subjects  of  interest 
to  her.  I  desire  my  sisters,  who  are  in  all  respects  my  equal, 
should  have  the  same  right  to  vote  upon  any  question  that 
may  come  up. 

We  have  had  a  great  deal  of  talk  on  the  subject  of  equality 
and  justice,  and  that  we  should  try  to  get  some  system  of  rep- 
resentation on  the  basis  of  equality  and  justice.  I  listened 
yesterday  with  a  great  deal  of  pleasure  to  the  eloquent  re- 
marks of  the  gentleman  from  Lancaster,  Mr.  Drew.  His 
statement  of  equality  and  justice  was  ably  and  well  put.  But 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  467 

I  was  sorry  when  he  departed  from  that  principle  in  disclaim- 
ing his  adherence  to,  the  principles  of  woman's  suffrage,  and 
saying  that  he  was  not  in  favor  of  allowing  women  to  vote.  I 
would  like  to  ask  that  gentleman's  wife,  and  his  sisters  if  he 
has  them,  what  their  view  would  be  in  regard  to  his  repre- 
senting them. 

We  have  had  a  good  demonstration  here  in  this  Convention 
of  the  ladies'  ability  to  act  for  themselves.  They  have  been 
before  us,  and  they  have  given  their  reason  for  asking  suffrage 
much  better  than  I  could  do  it.  They  have  come  before  us  in 
person  and  demonstrated  that  we  should  treat  them  with  the 
same  equity  and  justice  that  we  demand  for  ourselves.  They 
have  come  before  us  to  the  number  of  2,600  in  a  petition 
which  the  president  of  the  Woman's  Suffrage  association  pre- 
sented, asking  for  this  thing.  Shall  we  deny  them  that  right 
or  shall  we  give  it  to  them. 

Mr.  Pike  of  Haverhill — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention:  I  believe  this  question  much  more  im- 
portant than  any  other  question  that  has  come  before  the 
Convention, — that  we  give  the  rights  to  women  that  belong  to 
them — equal  rights  with  men.  Cannot  we  trust  our  mothers 
and  wives  and  sisters  and  daughters?  Who  gave  us  our  first 
instruction  in  matters  of  right  and  importance?  Was  it  not 
our  mothers  ?  Who  have  been  our  guides,  our  balance  wheels, 
and  upon  whose  judgment  we  have  depended  and  acted  when 
we  were  not  sure  of  our  own?  Has  it  not  been  our  wives? 
Cannot  we  trust  our  sisters  and  daughters  ? 

I  have  heard  some  gentlemen  in  the  Convention  say  that 
their  wives  and  daughters  do  not  want  to  vote.  This  may  be 
true  in  some  rare  cases,  but  I  believe  that  the  majority  of  the 
women  in  this  state  will  vote,  and  vote  right,  if  they  have  the 
chance.  I  believe  that  they  will  make  better  students  of  poli- 
tics, that  they  will  go  deeper  into  the  matter,  and  that  their 
intuitive  sense  of  right  will  give  them  a  clear  understanding, 
so  they  will  not  only  vote,  and  vote  right,  but  their  influence 
over  the  men  will  be  in  the  right  direction. 

But  supposing  the  wife  of  some  gentleman  here  does  not 


468    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

want  to  vote.  Is  that  any  reason  why  he  should  deny  the 
privilege  to  the  other  good  women  of  the  state? 

Do  not  the  mothers  and  wives  have  a  greater  interest  and 
a  more  unselfish  one  in  our  welfare  than  anyone  else  could 
have? 

Conditions  have  changed.  The  thought  of  the  people  has 
changed.  I  can  remember  back  in  the  slave  days,  when  the 
slaveholders  said  that  the  slaves  did  not  want  to  be  free,  that 
they  were  satisfied  to  be  slaves. 

I  believe  that  the  majority  of  the  women  of  our  land  want 
the  right  of  franchise — want  a  voice  in  the  government  of  our 
land.  I  believe  that  they  are  entitled  to  have  it,  and  that  they 
are  in  every  way  able  and  fitted  to  be  trusted  with  it. 

We  remember  with  pleasure  the  ladies  who  spoke  to  us  day 
before  yesterday,  representing  the  Woman's  Suffrage  associa- 
tions. We  are  satisfied  that  these  women  knew  what  they 
were  talking  about — what  they  wanted.  Do  we  not  believe 
that  such  women  are  entitled  to  vote,  and  do  we  not  think 
that  they  will  vote  intelligently.  Do  we  not  wish  to  have 
such  bright,  intelligent  looking  ladies  as  are  now  in  the  gal- 
lery have  equal  rights  with  us? 

A  resolution  has  been  offered  in  this  Convention  to  leave 
God  out  of  the  Constitution.  Leave  God  out  of  the  Constitu- 
tion! Gentlemen,  let  us  put  God  into  it — into  every  section 
and  every  article — and  then  let  us  put  women  into  it,  our 
mothers,  our  wives,  our  sisters,  our  daughters,  and  our  sweet- 
hearts. Then  we  can  go  home  and  meet  their  smiling  ap- 
proval, and  I  believe  that  if  we  do  nothing  else  but  give  to  the 
women  of  this  state  the  right  of  suffrage,  we  will  have  accom- 
plished more  for  our  beloved  commonwealth  than  we  could 
accomplish  in  any  other  way. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton — I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man from  Warner  where  there  is  anything  in  the  Constitution 
to  prevent  the  legislature  from  giving  women  the  right  to 
vote  when  the  legislature  is  satisfied  that  she  should  have  it. 

Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner — Article  twenty-seven,  part  two, 
of  the  Constitution. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  469 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gen- 
tlemen of  the  Committee:  I  yield  to  no  man  in  my  respect 
and  admiration  for  women;  I  yield  to  no  man  in  the'  enjoy- 
ment I  experienced  in  listening  to  the  eloquent  words  of  the 
ladies  who  addressed  us  upon  this  subject  the  other  evening. 
I  do  not  believe  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  have  voiced 
any  demand  for  woman's  suffrage;  I  do  not  believe  that  the 
people  of  this  state  want  anything  of  that  sort  when  they  get 
but  2,600  signers  out  of  411,000  people. 

I  do  not  believe  that  woman  is  going  to  be  placed  in  any 
more  advantageous  position,  or  have  any  more  influence  when 
dragged  from  the  high  pedestal  she  now  occupies  and  placed 
in  the  arena  of  political  warfare  with  men.  I  do  not  believe 
that  woman  cares  to  vote.  I  do  not  believe  that  in  the  state 
of  Colorado  the  women  would  vote  to  have  woman's  suffrage 
extended  a  second  time,  in  view  of  some  experiences  in  that 
direction  that  they  have  had.  I  know  a  woman,, raised  in  New 
Hampshire,  the  daughter  of  a  Presbyterian  minister,  who  now 
lives  in  Colorado,  who  when  visiting  here  said  that  she  would 
never  go  to  the  polls  again,  and  that  was  the  position  taken 
by  most  of  the  respectable  women  in  the  city  of  Denver. 

It  has  been  well  expressed  that,  "The  hand  that  rocks  the 
cradle  rules  the  world."  It  was  true  when  it  was  said,  it  is 
true  now,  and  it  is  truer  than  it  will  be  if  you  give  women  the 
vote  and  send  them  down  to  dispute  with  men. 

Napoleon,  the  great  general,  at  one  time,  it  is  said,  when 
asked  by  Mme.  de  Stael  who  was  the  greatest  woman,  replied, 
"She  who  is  the  mother  of  the  largest  family." 

Do  you  believe  that  woman's  suffrage  will  help  to  build  up 
the  homes  in  New  Hampshire?  Do  you  believe  that  it  will 
make  better  mothers?  Is  not  the  home  what  we  are  trying  to 
build  up?  Is  it  not  necessary  that  we  should  have  woman  at 
home  to  bear  the  children  and  then  raise  those  children  in 
the  years  to  come?  The  old  countrywoman,  the  woman  whom 
you  and  I  remember,  called  "Auntie"  by  everybody,  who  lived 
in  the  country  towns  and  extended  her  hands  to  every  one  in 
affliction,  who  officiated  at  birth,  and  who  assisted  at  death, 


470    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

had  more  power  than  any  woman  with  woman's  suffrage  will, 
or  can  have,  in  this  state  or  any  other.  We  all  admire  that 
motherly  woman,  a  woman  who  raises  her  family,  directs  the 
feet  of  her  children  in  the  direction  they  should  go,  takes  an 
interest  in  their  pleasures  and  their  tasks,  educates  them  and 
watches  over  them — that  is  the  kind  of  a  woman  that  we  ad- 
mire, the  kind  of  a  wife  that  any  man  of  New  Hampshire 
should  aspire  to.  In  the  past  we  have  had  those  women  in 
New  Hampshire,  and  I  hope  the  women  of  our  state  will  re- 
main on  the  pedestal  where  we  have  always  worshipped  them. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Committee:  I  am  not  sure  but  that  the  best  thing  I 
can  do  is  to  make  my  remarks  the  way  the  lazy  man  said  his 
prayers.  It  became  tiresome  for  him  to  repeat  his  prayer 
every  night  before  going  to  bed,  and  so  he  pinned  it  to  the 
head  of  his  bed,  and  as  he  "turned  in/'  as  we  phrased  it  in 
army  times,  he  pointed  to  it  and  said,  "0  Lord,  them's  my 
sentiments."  After  hearing  the  eloquent  remarks  of  the  ladies 
who  have  addressed  us  I  do  not  know  as  I  can  do  more  than 
to  say,  "Them's  my  sentiments."  I  do  not  believe  any  gen- 
tleman on  the  floor  has  time,  or  will  have  time,  to  answer  the 
arguments  made  before  this  body  by  those  ladies.  They  are 
simply  unanswerable. 

We  are  discussing  a  different  question  from  that  in  which 
we  have  been  engaged  during  the  days  past.  In  this  question 
there  is  no  politics.  It  is  simply  a  question  of  equity  and  of 
right.  Is  is  simply  a  question  of  whether  we  shall  change  our 
organic  law  so  as  to  have  new  elements  in  our  political  organ- 
ization. I  wish  to  remind  you  that  all  life,  animal  and 
vegetable,  depends  upon  the  ability  of  the  organization  to 
acquire  new  blood  and  new  growth — new  elements.  The  mo- 
ment any  vegetable  or  any  animal  ceases  to  take  on  new  ele- 
ments, new  blood  and  tissue,  that  moment  it  begins  to  die. 
That  is  a  natural  law,  and  it  is  the  law  not  only  with  the  ani- 
mal and  vegetable  kingdom,  but  it  is  the  law  with  reference  to 
political  bodies. 


THTJKSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  471 

I  know  that  there  is  a  prejudice  that  keeps  us  a  great  many 
times  from  entering  upon  anything  that  is  new,  and  it  is  this, 
it  seems  to  me,  that  lies  at  the  root  of  the  whole  matter. 
There  is  a  prejudice  against  taking  on  something  new,  and 
there  is  a  feeling  in  favor  of  continuing  in  the  old  paths. 
That  is  the  feeling,  perhaps,  of  nine*  out  of  ten  of  this  Con- 
vention. But  let  me  remind  you,  gentlemen,  that  principle  of 
action  is  what  has  kept  poor,  old,  decrepit  China  dragging  at 
the  wheels  of  progress  for  centuries  past,  and  it  is  because 
that  principle  was  discarded  by  little  Japan  that  she  has  taken 
her  position  so  famous  in  the  world.  Just  think  of  the  little 
island  kingdom,  having  only  about  forty  million  inhabitants, 
and  how  she  has  humbled  the  great  empire  of  China,  contain- 
ing almost  one  fourth  of  the  population  of  the  globe.  The 
conditions  which  enabled  Japan  to  do  this  were  brought  about 
simply  by  the  fact  that  Japan  has  gone  out  of  the  old  beaten 
paths  and  taken  on  new  life. 

This  Convention  can  honor  itself  no  more  than  by  saying  to 
the  women  of  the  state,  "Yes,  you  can  submit  this  question  to 
the  people;  you  can  go  throughout  the  length  and  breadth  of 
the  state  and  advocate  your  cause,  and  we  will  leave  it  to  the 
people."  Is  not  that  fair?  There  can  be  no  harm  in  that.  If 
four  tenths  of  the  people  of  the  state  vote  against  it  there  is 
no  harm  done  by  submitting  it  to  them  for  their  decision. 
Let  us  meet  this  request  of  the  ladies  in  the  spirit  of  courtesy 
and  honor  and  justice,  and  allow  this  question  to  be  submitted 
to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire, 

Mr.  Dudley  of  Concord — If  the  time  has  not  already  ex- 
pired I  want  to  say  just  one  word.  I  do  not  propose  to  advo- 
cate all  the  merits  of  this  measure.  That  matter  has  been 
more  clearly  stated  to  the  members  of  this  Committee  by  the 
ladies  who  addressed  us  the  other  evening  than  is  possible  for 
me  to  do. 

The  principal  objection — the  only  objection — that  seems  to 
be  raised  here  against  submitting  this  question  to  the  people  is 
.that  the  people  do  not  want  it,  that  the  ladies  of  this  state  do 


472    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

not  want  the  privilege  of  voting.  That  is  no  argument  at  all. 
It  was  said  here  by  the  gentleman  from  Londonderry,,  Mr. 
Pillsbury,  that  the  women  of  this  state  ruled  the  state,  that 
the  women  of  this  country  rule  the  country.  In  one  sense  they 
do,  and  if  this  matter  is  submitted  to  the  people,  and  the 
women  do  not  want  to  vote  or  to  receive  the  privilege  of  vot- 
ing, two  thirds  of  the  voters  of  this  state  will  vote  against  the 
amendment  and  no  damage  will  be  done.  If  they  do  approve 
of  it  and  want  the  privilege,  then  the  amendment  will  receive 
two  thirds  of  the  votes  and  will  become  a  law  of  the  state.  I 
say  we  ought  to  give  them  the  privilege  of  submitting  this 
question  to  the  legal  voters  of  this  state,  and  if  they  vote  to 
place  the  ballot  in  the  hands  of  the  women  I  believe  we  all 
would  be  satisfied  with  it,  and  I  believe  we  would  have  better 
government  and  less  corruption  in  politics,  and  it  would  have 
no  influence  in  making  the  homes  less  happy  than  they  are 
now. 

The  Chairman — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  the  half 
hour  has  expired.  There  was  some  misunderstanding  in  re- 
gard to  this  matter,  and  the  chair  feels  it  proper  that  before 
the  question  is  voted  upon  it  may  be  straightened  out,  and 
with  the  consent  of  the  house  I  will  recognize  the  gentleman 
from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  renew  the  motion  that  I  made 
in  the  Convention  to  amend  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman 
from  Warner,  Mr.  Thompson. 

The  Chairman — The  gentleman  from  Warner,  Mr.  Thomp- 
son, moves  to  amend  the  Constitution  as  follows:  "Resolved,. 
That  the  word  'male'  be  stricken  out  of  article  twenty-seven 
of  the  Constitution,"  and  Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton  presents- 
as  an  amendment  the  following,  which  the  clerk  will  read. 

Clerk  reads  as  follows: 

"The  legislature  is  authorized  to  submit  to  the  people  the 
question  whether  suffrage  shall  be  conferred  upon  women,  and 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  473 

whenever,  upon  such  submission,,  two  thirds  of  the  legal  voters 
and  two  thirds  of  the  native  born  and  naturalized  women  of 
the  state  above  twenty-one  years  of  age  shall  have  voted  in 
the  affirmative  upon  such  question,  then  any  subsequent  leg- 
islature may  confer  full  suffrage  upon  women." 

The  Chairman — The  chair  rules  that  this  be  regarded  and 
presented  in  the  way  of  an  amendment.  If  there  is  any  error 
in  this  ruling  it  can  be  rectified  by  the  committee. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  will  say,  Mr.  Chairman,  that 
I  agree  entirely  with  the  remarks  of  some  of  the  gentlemen, 
that  this  proposition  is  one  of  the  most  important  questions 
to  be  submitted  to  this  Convention.  It  must  be  understood 
that  if  this  Convention  votes  affirmatively  upon  this  question, 
it  passes  its  judgment  to  the  world  that  it  is  in  favor  of 
woman's  suffrage.  I  do  not  think  that  such  a  question  as  that 
should  be  disposed  of  upon  thirty  minutes'  debate;  I  do  not 
think  that  any  gentleman  has  a  right,  by  arrangement  with 
another,  to  estop  this  Convention  by  limiting  debate  to  thirty 
minutes.  I  am  opposed  to  it.  I  do  not  propose  to  express  my 
position  on  the  main  proposition  as  it  stands  in  five  minutes, 
or  anywhere  near  it.  I  do  think  that  the  question  should  be 
discussed  fairly,  and  if  it  is  the  sense  of  this  Convention, 
without  giving  its  endorsement  to  the  proposition  of  woman's 
suffrage  as  a  whole,  to  allow  it  to  be  voted  upon  by  the  voters 
of  New  Hampshire,  or  by  the  voters  and  the  women  of  New 
Hampshire,  the  plan  I  have  suggested,  or  one  similar  to  it, 
should  be  the  one  adopted.  It  gives  the  opportunity  for  the 
women  to  vote  upon  the  question;  it  is  fair  to  this  Conven- 
tion, and  fair  to  the  women  of  the  state, 

I  move  that  the  time  for  debate  upon  this  question  be  ex- 
tended one  hour. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  made  no  arrangement  with 
anybody  about  half  an  hour's  debate.  I  assented  to  the  idea 
presented  by  the  presiding  officer  of  this  Convention,  that  the 
gentleman  from  Warner,  Mr.  Thompson,  should  make  the 


474    JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

motion  he  did  without  any  objection  from  me.  I  undoubt- 
edly could  not  have  prevailed  if  I  had  made  objection.  But 
the  Convention  itself  fixed  the  half  hour  limit,  and  so  the 
gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  should  criticise  the 
Convention  and  not  myself.  I  agree  with  him  that  an  ar- 
rangement of  that  sort  cannot  be  made  by  members,  but  must 
be  made  only  by  the  Convention  itself  and  voted  upon  by  the 
Convention. 

The  chair  puts  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Little- 
ton, Mr.  Aldrich,  that  the  time  for  debate  upon  woman  suf- 
frage be  extended  one  hour,  and  the  motion  is  carried. 

The  Chairman — The  discussion  will  continue  for  one  hour, 
and  speeches,  as  at  first  indicated,  will  be  limited  to  five 
minutes. 

Mr.  Osgood  of  Nelson — I  suppose  that  everybody  recol- 
lects the  time  when  the  law  was  passed  permitting  women  to 
Tote  in  the  school  meeting.  They  did  vote  quite  generally  for 
a  few  years,  but  now,  so  far  as  I  am  informed,  not  one  in  ten 
in  the  country  towns  avail  themselves  of  this  privilege.  That 
does  not  look  as  if  women  were  anxious  to  vote. 

A  man  said  here  that  it  was  no  argument  that  they  did  not 
want  to  vote.  I  would  like  to  know  why  it  is  not  an  argu- 
ment. 

I  know  that  several  years  ago  the  women  of  New  York 
petitioned  to  the  assembly  of  New  York  for  suffrage,  and  such 
petition  was  circulated,  so  the  New  York  Tribune  said  (which 
I  think  is  good  authority),  but  it  did  not  get  a  large  propor- 
tion of  the  women  of  the  state  to  sign  it. 

I  undertake  to  say  there  is  no  demand  in  this  state  by  fifty 
per  cent,  of  the  women  for  any  woman's  suffrage  amendment 
to  our  Constitution.  I  have  n't  the  least  doubt  about  it,  al- 
though I  cannot  prove  it.  The  women  of  this  state  have  now 
plenty  of  money,  plenty  of  leisure.,  and  it  goes  without  saying 
that  they  can  hold  office  although  they  cannot  vote,  and  we 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  475 

••are  quite  willing  that  they  should  have  the  opportunity  to 
;serve  their  country  in  that  direction. 

Would  it  not  be  wise  to  go  slow.  The  ladies  the  other 
night  spoke  eloquently,  and  I  heard  considerable  of  what  they 
:said.  Their  arguments  were  good  enough,  but  I  think  it  is  a 
.greater  argument  against  the  proposition  that  the  women  do 
not  want  the  right  of  suffrage.  I  know  quite  a  number  of 
women  who  are  quite  capable  and  enlightened  enough  to  exer- 
cise the  right  of  suffrage  as  well  as  the  majority  of  men,  but 
they  do  not  want  it,  and  I  see  no  reason  for  forcing  it  upon 
them. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter — I  do  not  know  whether  it  is  wise  or 
not — I  have  not  asked  my  wife,  but  shall  later. 

The  gentleman  who  has  just  addressed  us  has  spoken  of  the 
lack  of  effect  produced  by  conferring  upon  woman  the  right 
to  vote  in  school  affairs.  I  have  not  lived  in  Nelson,  but  have 
in  Exeter.  The  women  of  Exeter  do  not  exercise  the  right  to 
vote  in  school  affairs  at  all  times,  but  they  do  semi-occasion- 
ally,  and  when  they  do  it  has  a  most  excellent  effect.  When- 
ever they  have  exercised  the  right  conferred  upon  them  the 
•effect  has  been  good  for  them  and  for  the  whole  community. 

Mr.  Mies  of  Concord — I  am  unable  to  share  in  the  positive- 
ness  of  the  gentlemen  on  either  side  of  this  question  as  to 
whether  the  women  of  the  state  do  or  do  not  want  woman 
suffrage.  My  position  as  to  what  is  best  under  the  circum- 
stances is  also  a  position  of  doubt,  I  shall  vote  for  submitting 
this  in  some  way  to  the  people,  because  I  am  not  satisfied  it  is 
wrong.  On  any  question  where  I  was  satisfied  one  way  or  the 
other,  I  should  vote  as  I  thought  was;  right,  but  not  being 
satisfied  in  this  case  I  shall  vote  for  submitting  the  question 
to  the  popular  vote.  But  I  think  the  proposition  advanced 
by  the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  should  be 
adopted. 

As  far  as  my  acquaintance  goes,  as  far  as  I  have  conferred 
•and  talked  with  the  women  of  my  acquaintance  about  this 
matter,  I  have  found  that  they  would  be  practically  unani- 


476    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

mous  against  woman's  suffrage.  I  do  not  believe  it  would  be 
fair  and  right  to  force  it  upon  them  if  they  do  not  want  it.  I 
do  not  think  that  there  would  be  any  principle  of  equity  up- 
held by  forcing  upon  the  women  of  New  Hampshire  a  burden 
they  do  not  want.  I  think,  therefore,  that  the  proposition  of 
the  gentleman  from  Littleton  is  a  fair  one,  as  the  decision 
would  not  rest  wholly  upon  the  men  of  the  state,  who  would 
be  more  or  less  in  ignorance  of  the  wishes  of  the  women  about 
it,  but  it  would  give  the  women  themselves  an  opportunity  to- 
vote  upon  the  question. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — Mr.  Chairman,  I  deem  it  a  very 
great  misfortune  to  myself  that  I  am  drawn  into  the  dis- 
cussion of  this  question  this  afternoon.  I  deem  it  unfortu- 
nate for  myself,  being  in  opposition  to  this  measure,  to  be 
obliged  to  state  my  position  in  five  minutes,  because  if  a  man 
finds  himself  in  opposition  to  the  women,  even  in  the  little 
things  of  life,  it  requires  more  than  five  minutes  to  explain 
why  he  is  there.  But  to  be  serious,  the  proposition  is  startling 
that  a  question  which  involves  the  overthrow  of  one  of  the- 
pillars  of  our  civic  structure  should  slide  through  this  Con- 
vention on  grounds  of  chivalry  with  a  five-minute  limitation 
upon  members  desiring  to  state  the  reasons  for  their  action 
upon  so  important  a  measure.  If  I  am  in  opposition  to  the 
proposition  to  strike  the  word  "male"  from  the  Constitution 
it  is  not  because  I  deem  women  as  a  class  less  intelligent  than 
men,  nor  is  it  because  I  deem  the  sphere  of  woman  less  im- 
portant than  that  of  man.  I  accord  to  no  man  a  higher  ap- 
preciation of  womanhood  than  I  hold  myself.  My  belief  is 
that  the  sphere  of  woman  in  the  world  is  just  as  important  as 
that  of  man.  The  function  of  woman  in  working  out  the 
destinies  of  the  home,  the  destinies  of  the  state,  and  the  des- 
tinies of  the  nation,  is  quite  as  important  and  more  exalted 
than  that  of  man.  Man  receives  his  inspiration  from  woman, 
and  he  governs  his  actions  by  the  judgment  of  woman,  as  he 
finds  it  in  the  home.  I  doubt  whether  the  function  of  woman 
would  be  as  important  in  the  affairs  of  life  and  the  affairs  of 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  477 

the  nation  if  she  were  thrust  into  the  tumultuous  turmoils  in- 
cident to  the  town-meetings  and  the  ward  meetings.  I  doubt 
if  the  world  would  get  along  as  well  as  it  is  doing  now  if  the 
position  of  women  in  respect  to  the  home  and  to  voting  were 
changed.  Woman's  sphere  is  not  to  walk  elbow  to  elbow 
with  man  into  the  strife  and  the  tumultuous  turmoils  of  the 
town-meetings  and  the  wars!  Man's  inspiration,  pride,  and 
action  largely  depend  upon  his  respect  and  appreciation  of 
woman.  I  doubt  very  seriously  whether  man's  chivalric  ap- 
preciation of  the  inspiring  and  beautifying  influence  of 
womanhood  will  remain  through  many  generations  if  woman 
shall  relinquish  her  exalted  position — her  supreme  point  of 
vantage — and  come  down  into  the  struggles  of  the  country 
and  city  voting  places.  It  will  lower  the  woman  and  antago- 
nize rather  than  elevate  the  man.  It  would  disturb  the  serene 
security  of  motherhood,  and  no  insistence  upon  the  idea  of 
the  abstract  right  of  women  to  vote  can  compensate  for  such 
a  loss  as  that.  It  must  be  remembered  that  conferring  the 
right  to  vote  imposes  the  duty.  If  bad  women  exercise  the 
right  to  vote,  all  women  must,  or  the  equilibrium  in  voting 
will  be  wholly  lost. 

I  shall  not  say  anything  more  upon  this  question,  but  I  ask 
the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  a  few  paragraphs  from  the 
address  of  a  very  distinguished  and  a  venerable  man  who  sat 
in  this  hall  for  many  years.  He  was  one  of  the  grandest  men 
I  ever  knew,  one  of  the  most  tolerant,  one  of  the  most  learned 
and  philosophical.  I  refer  to  the  late  lamented  Harry  Bing- 
ham.  His  respect  for  motherhood  and  the  home  was  sublime. 
I  remember  hearing  him  say  that  great  nations  were  impos- 
sible without  great  men,  and  that  great  men  are  possible  only 
where  great  and  good  mothers  preside  over  the  childhood  and 
the  home.  The  address  to  which  I  refer  was  delivered  before 
the  Grafton  Bar  association  a  few  years  ago,  and  I  ask  the 
clerk  to  read  the  paragraphs  which  I  have  marked,  and  I  make 
them  a  part  of  my  remarks  upon  this  question. 

The  clerk  read  as  follows: 


478    JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

There  are  some  things  that  without  doubt  will  always  re- 
main for  the  men  to  do,,  while  other  things  are  left  exclusively 
in  the  hands  of  the  women.  Women  will  never  be  called  upon 
to  carry  the  musket  or  to  dig  ditches;  certainly  not  except  in 
extraordinary  exigencies.  The  household,  the  home,  the 
family  are  the  proper  dominion  of  the  wife  and  mother. 
There  she  should  be  supreme.  War,  invention,  discovery,  the; 
subjugation  of  the  wilderness  and  fitting  it  for  civilization 
are  the  business  of  the  men.  In  a  vast  number  of  employ- 
ments it  is  not  likely  that  a  definite  line  of  demarcation  will 
ever  be  drawn  between  what  shall  be  done  by  one  sex  and 
what  by  the  other.  No  doubt  some  occupations  always  will, 
remain  open  to  both  sexes  alike.  No  superiority  of  one  sex 
over  the  other  is  implied  because  in  some  matters  the  services; 
of  one  are  preferred  to  the  services  of  the  other.  The  sex  en- 
abled by  its  peculiar  powers  to  perform  a  given  work  better 
than  the  other  sex  can,  is  preferred  and  ought  to  be  preferred. 

There  are  questions  more  or  less  discussed  at  the  present 
time  about  the  ballot;  whether  or  not  that  should  be  given  to 
woman,  and  whether  or  not  her  participation  in  such  business 
would  be  congenial  to  herself  and  tend  to  promote  human 
progress.  The  class  of  women  (to  whom  allusion  has  been 
made  already  as  of  no  account)  prancing  along  on  the  divis- 
ional line  that  society  has  fixed  between  the  sexes  as  to  man- 
ners and  costume,  putting  on  mannish  airs,  garments,  and 
headgear,  and  exhibiting  only  faint  traces  of  what  would  indi- 
cate the  sex  to  which  they  belong,  are  extremely  urgent  and 
vociferous  in  their  demands  for  the  ballot.  Although  it  must 
be  admitted  that  there  are  some  women  and  perhaps  some 
men  of  character  endowed  with  large  intellectual  powers,  who 
sincerely  believe  that  the  whole  domain  of  politics  and  gov- 
ernment ought  to  be  thrown  open  to  women  the  same  as  it  is 
to  men,  that  women  ought  to  have  universal  suffrage  and  be 
eligible  to  all  the  offices  in  all  departments  of  the  govern- 
ment, and  to  all  positions  in  every  branch  of  business;  yet 
much  the  larger  part  of  the  sober-minded,  sensible  women  do 
not  regard  it  as  their  duty  to  seek  such  an  extended  opening 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  479 

for  female  action.  On  the  contrary,  they  denounce  the  idea 
and  say  that  it  calls  upon  them  to  do  what  does  not  belong  to 
them  to  do  according  to  the  natural  and  proper  division  of 
work  between  the  sexes,  and  that  they  might  just  as  well  be 
called  upon  to  carry  the  musket  or  dig  ditches. 

The  propriety  and  rightfulness  of  thrusting  upon  women 
all  the  turmoil,  uproar,  and  unseemly  strife  that  the  carrying 
out  of  such  an  idea  would  involve  is  certainly  very  doubtful. 
It  would  not  enable  her  to  use  her  natural  and  legitimate  in- 
fluence to  any  better  advantage.  On  the  contrary,  it  would 
place  her  in  an  unnatural  position  and  where  she  would  not 
feel  at  home,  and  thus  she  would  be  compelled  to  exercise  her 
wholesome  and  necessary  influence  at  a  disadvantage.  Her 
influence  to  be  effective  and  useful  must  operate  through  the 
natural  channels  of  female  influence  and  in  accordance  with 
the  laws  of  her  being.  The  suggestion  that  we  ought  to  wait 
until  the  human  race  is  further  advanced  in  light  and  civiliza- 
tion before  we  thrust  upon  woman  the  responsibility  of  the 
ballot  fully  extended,  and  of  running  the  government  in  all 
its  branches,  is  certainly  reasonable.  The  intimate  associa- 
tion of  woman  with  children  and  youth,  the  deep  interest  she 
feels  in  their  welfare,  and  her  special  responsibility  for  them, 
have  caused  everybody  to  agree  that  she  ought  to  have  a  po- 
tential voice  in  their  training  and  education.  In  accordance 
with  this  general  popular  assent,  a  movement  was  inaugurated 
some  time  ago  by  which  women  have  been  made  competent 
voters  in  school  meetings,  and  eligible  to  the  offices  which 
have  the  management  and  control  of  the  schools. 

Certain  Rocky  Mountain  states  and  other  Western  states 
have  imposed  upon  their  women  the  responsibility  of  the  bal- 
lot, and  of  taking  an  equal  part  with  the  men  in  administer- 
ing the  government  in  all  its  branches.  This  movement  must 
be  regarded  as  simply  tentative  and  experimental.  We  shall 
do  well  if  we  watch  it  long  enough  to  be  satisfied  as  to  its 
character.  We  shall  then  be  able  to  draw  inferences  that  may 
aid  us  in  determining  what  we  ought  to  do.  It  will 
no  doubt  be  a  good  disposition  of  this  question  if  we 


480     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

leave  it  to  be  determined  by  the  next  generation.  We  have 
shown  already  what  that  generation  is  expected  to  be.  We 
have  shown  that  in  it  and  a  part  of  it  will  be  the  sons  and 
daughters  of  mothers  who  are  now  girls  receiving  training  and 
discipline  in  our  numerous  institutions  for  the  higher  educa- 
tion of  women.  We  have  a  right  to  expect  for  this  reason 
that  the  next  generation  will  have  the  capacity  to  judge  in 
regard  to  this  and  all  other  questions  more  wisely  than  we  of 
this  generation  can.  Also,  facts  bearing  on  the  question  now 
unknown  will  have  come  to  light.  The  results  of  the  experi- 
ments now  going  on  in  the  Eocky  Mountain  and  other  West- 
ern states  will  then  be  known,  and  the  evidence  presented  to 
the  next  generation  may  remove  all  doubt  and  make  very 
plain  the  way  this  question  ought  to  be  decided.  What  gives 
the  question  importance  is  the  effect  that  its  determination 
either  way  may  have  upon  human  progress.  Whenever  it 
shall  come  to  pass  that  the  level-headed,  sober-minded,  sensi- 
ble women  substantially  concur  in  the  conclusion  that  woman 
never  will  have  her  normal  position  in  organized  society  until 
she  has  the  ballot  and  takes  equal  part  with  man  in  govern- 
mental affairs,  and  that  the  welfare  and  future  progress  of  the 
race  require  her  to  assume  those  responsibilities,  in  the  inter- 
est of  harmony  between  the  sexes  which  must  be  preserved,  it 
will  then  be  necessary  to  inaugurate  and  try  the  experiment 
without  delay. 

In  settling  this  question  and  all  other  questions  as  to  the 
position  each  sex  ought  to  occupy  in  society,  let  it  always  be 
remembered  that  man  and  woman  are  partners  in  the  busi- 
ness of  maintaining  and  improving  the  human  race;  that  their 
joint  obligation  to  contribute  to  the  progress  of  the  race  will 
continue  until  mankind  have  advanced  in  knowledge,  virtue, 
and  goodness  as  near  to  Divinity  itself  as  the  lot  of  humanity 
will  permit. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  do  not  rise  to  enter  into  any  discus- 
sion of  the  merits  of  this  proposition.  I  have  just  a  few  inci- 
dental remarks  to  make,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  the  first  and 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  481 

most  obvious  one  is  that  the  resolution  which  has  been  pre- 
sented by  the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  is  not 
favorable  to  the  subject  under  consideration,  and  those  who 
are  in  favor  of  the  submission  of  the  question  of  female  suf- 
frage to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  should  vote  against 
his  proposition. 

It  was  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Nelson,  Mr.  Osgood, 
that  the  women  do  not  vote  at  the  school  meeting,  and  he 
thinks  that  is  a  sufficient  argument  why  a  further  suffrage 
should  not  be  presented  to  them.  I  would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tlemen here  present,  who  of  them  if  they  had  a  right  to  vote 
in  school  meetings  only  would  attend  those  meetings.  I  ven- 
ture to  say  that  the  proportion  of  men  voters  attending  the 
meeting  would  be  as  small  as  that  of  women  voters  now. 

This  is  an  open  proposition,  and  it  is  an  occasion  on  which 
we  all  ought  to  be  fair  and  chivalrous.  We  are  not  met  here 
with  the  proposition  that  we  axe  to  determine  the  question  of 
female  suffrage  at  this  time.  If  we  vote  to  submit  this  prop- 
osition to  the  people  that  they  may  vote  upon  it,  it  does  not 
necessarily  follow  that  we  are  in  favor  of  woman's  suffrage. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — If  we  vote  to  strike  the  word 
"male"  from  the  Constitution,  do  we  not  submit  the  question 
to  the  people  with  the  approval  of  this  Convention?  Do  you 
not  understand  that  every  gentleman  is  bound  to  vote  upon 
this  question  as  he  thinks  the  question  should  be  finally  de- 
termined ? 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Unquestionably  as  he  thinks  the  ques- 
tion should  be  voted  upon  here,  and  I  believe  and  hope  that 
there  are  many  men  in  this  hall  who  are  chivalrous  enough  to 
think  that  this  question  ought  to  be  submitted  to  the  people 
even  though  they  are  not  necessarily  in  favor  of  woman's  suf- 
frage. 

Now,  gentlemen,  the  ladies  have  come  to  us  in  respectable 
numbers  and  with  arguments  which  none  of  us  have  at- 
tempted to  dispute  and  asked  of  us,  not  that  we  shall  give 
31 


482     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

them  the  right  of  suffrage,  but  that  we  shall  submit  the  ques- 
tion of  female  suffrage  to  the  people;  they  ask  that  of  us  as 
chivalrous  men,  men  who  believe  in  accommodating  the 
ladies,  men  who  would  grant  the  request  of  a  wife,  or  sister,  or 
mother.  They  ask  that  we  should  do  exactly  that,  nothing- 
more,  and  nothing  less.  If  I  understand  their  proposition 
(which  has  not  been  communicated  to  me),  they  will  then  go 
before  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  and  make  their  argu- 
ments. Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  are  we  not  brave 
enough,  are  we  not  considerate  enough,  are  we  not  kindly 
enough,  are  we  not  chivalrous  enough  to  give  the  ladies  a 
chance  of  a  hearing  before  the  people  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire?  I  hope  we  are. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — I  desire  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man a  question.  Whether  we  are  here  to  act  upon  this  propo- 
sition as  a  business  proposition,  or  simply  as  a  matter  of  cour- 
tesy to  the  women? 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee:  We  are  met  here  upon  equal  grounds,  we  have 
equal  rights  and  privileges,  we  meet  exactly  on  even  terms, 
but  the  ladies  have  not  the  privilege  to  come  here  and  discuss 
these  questions  with  us,  and  I  believe  in  giving  them  a  chance 
to  submit  their  arguments  and  their  cause  to  the  people  of 
New  Hampshire.  Why  in  the  name  of  common  fairness  and 
common  decency  should  we  not  give  them  a  chance  to  do  this. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — Mr.  Chairman,  I  do  not  want  to 
be  outdone  by  the  gallant  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  in 
chivalric  devotion  to  the  fair  sex.  I  have  a  wife  and  a 
daughter,  and  they  are  both  opposed  to  this  proposition,  and  I 
am  bound  in  making  up  my  judgment  to  consider  the  sanc- 
tity of  the  home.  Everybody  is  bound  to  do  that.  Now,  in 
voting  upon  my  judgment,  I  vote  against  the  unqualified 
declaration  to  strike  the  word  "male"  from  the  Constitution, 
because,  if  the  proposition  prevails,  the  impression  will  go  out 
to  the  world  that  this  Convention,  voting  upon  its  judgment, 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  483 

has  declared  in  favor  of  woman  suffrage.  Now,  then,  voting 
upon  my  judgment  I  should  vote  against  the  main  proposi- 
tion, but  as  a  matter  of  chivalry  I  will  vote  to  submit  this 
question  to  the  male  voters  of  New  Hampshire,  if  the  sense 
of  the  women  of  New  Hampshire  can  also  be  taken.  I  say 
there  never  wa,s  a  fairer  suggestion  than  the  one  involved  in 
the  amendment  proposed  by  me  here. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Will  the  gentleman  from  Littleton  per- 
mit me  a  question?  Will  he  tell  us  how  that  can  be?  There 
are  no  check-lists,  and  there  is  no  arrangement  by  which  a 
vote  can  be  taken  by  the  women  on  this  subject. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — It  is  perfectly  easy.  The  next 
legislature,  or  any  legislature  whenever  public  sentiment  is 
ripe  for  it,  can  devise  the  means  for  submitting  the  question 
to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire.  If  there  is  merit  in  this 
question  the  gentleman  ought  to  be  willing  to  let  it  go  to  both 
the  women  and  the  men  of  New  Hampshire,  rather  than  to 
ask  men  who  are  opposed  to  this  question  on  their  judgment 
to  vote  against  their  conscience  and  submit  the  proposition  to 
the  people  upon  grounds  of  chivalry. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — The  proposition  of  the  gentleman 
amounts  simply  to  this — we  are  willing  to  transfer  to  the  leg- 
islature the  responsibilities  which  our  position  puts  upon  us. 
I  believe  that  we  should  meet  this  question  fairly  and 
squarely  here,  because  we  have  the  opportunity  and  the  duty 
to  do  it. 

Mr.  Folsom  of  Dover — It  seems  to  me  that  the  statement  of 
the  gentleman  from  Nelson,  Mr.  Osgood,  that  there  are  few 
women  that  go  to  the  school  meetings  is  as  good  an  argument 
for  the  disfranchising  of  the  men  of  the  state  as  it  is  for  not 
enfranchising  the  women.  I  think  every  man  here  who  is 
from  a  town  in  which  district  school  meetings  are  held  knows 
that  occasions  arise  when  but  few  men  go  to  the  school  meet- 
ing. I  believe  there  are  men  within  the  sound  of  my  voice 


484     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

who  did  not  attend  the  last  meeting  in  their  district,  but  I  do 
not  believe  they  would  consider  it  an  argument  for  their  dis- 
franchisement  that  they  did  not  attend  such  meeting. 

The  gentleman  from  Exeter,  Mr.  Fuller,  has  well  said  that 
when  their  presence  is  demanded  the  women  go  to  the  school 
meetings,  and  their  presence  is  effective.  Under  ordinary  cir- 
cumstances there  is  nothing  to  draw  them  there.  Take  the 
men,  they  do  not  care,  as  a  general  thing,  to  attend  the  school 
meetings.  I  know  of  towns  where  the  business  of  the  school  is 
managed  by  one  tenth  of  the  voters,  and  there  are  towns 
where  the  people  themselves  say  that  unless  they  held  their 
meeting  immediately  following  a  town-meeting — on  the  same 
day,  immediately  following — it  will  be  almost  impossible  to 
get  more  than  a  very  small  fraction  of  the  voters  of  the  town 
present.  I  have  heard  that  during  this  session  from  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention. 

I  do  not  know  how  I  should  vote  at  the  polls  in  regard  to 
accepting  this  amendment,  but  I  am  willing  the  voters  of  the 
state  should  decide.  I  am  willing  to  submit  it  to  the  people  of 
the  state  to  vote  upon.  Before  I  came  here  I  asked  my  wife, 
my  three  daughters,  my  daughter-in-law,  and  my  mother-in- 
law,  and  they  all  said  vote  "No/'  but  I  am  going  to  vote 
"Yes."  I  am  going  to  vote  "yes"  because  I  believe  in  submit- 
ting the  question  to  the  people,  and  when  I  get  ready  to  go  to 
the  polls  if  they  are  still  of  the  opinion  that  I  ought  to  vote 
"No,"  I  shall  probably  vote  "No."  I  suppose  if  the  women  of 
the  state  want  the  right  to  vote  they  will  advise  the  men  of  the 
state  to  vote  "Yes,"  and  the  men  will  vote  "Yes."  I  believe, 
in  time,  when  the  women  of  the  state  want  to  vote,  they  will 
be  given  an  opportunity  to  express  their  opinions  and  they 
will  express  them  that  way,  and  I  also  believe  that  when  men 
have  an  opportunity  to  vote  on  the  question  they  will  vote  as 
the  women  want. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — I  would  like  to  ask  a  ques- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Dover  in  relation  to  the  men  not 
appearing  at  the  school  meetings.  In  most  of  the  country 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  485 

towns,  surely  in  the  towns  in  which  I  am  acquainted,  the  ap- 
propriations for  the  school  are  raised  in  the  town-meetings, 
and  that  is  where  the  men's  greatest  interest  centers — where 
they  raise  their  appropriations.  The  school  committee  are 
usually  there,  and  they  tell  them  how  much  money  they  want 
to  carry  on  the  school,  and  it  does  not  seem  necessary  for  them 
simply  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  school  committee — an 
affair  which  is  all  cut  and  dried — to  attend  the  school  meet- 
ings. I  think  that  is  a  fair  explanation  why  the  men  do  not 
take  a  greater  interest  in  the  school  meetings  about  which 
there  has  been  more  or  less  criticism  here. 

Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen: 
It  is  a  great  pleasure  to  me,  as  I  imagine  it  must  be  to  every 
member  in  this  Convention,  to  know  that  there  is  one  member 
here  who  is  not  afraid  of  his  mother-in-law.  I  hold  in  my 
hand  a  little  pamphlet  which  was  sent  me  to-day,  and  which 
so  much  better  expresses  my  views  in  regard  to  this  question 
that  I  am  going  to  read  a  very  small  portion  of  it. 

The  suffragists  claim  the  franchise  for  women  on  the  fol- 
lowing grounds: 

First,  That  the  right  to  vote  is  a  natural  and  inherent  one, 
of  which  they  are  deprived. 

Second,  That  women  are  taxed  but  not  represented,  con- 
trary to  the  principles  of  free  government. 

As  to  the  justice  of  their  claim  to  an  inherent,  natural  right 
of  which  they  are  deprived,  we  answer  that  the  right  of  suf- 
frage is  not  inherent  or  inalienable.  In  all  political  history 
there  is  not  one  phrase  which  could  be  construed  into  meaning 
that  men  have  the  right  of  suffrage  because  they  are  human 
beings.  Society  does  not  exist  by  the  consent  of  those  who 
enter  it.  Our  government  was  established  long  before  the 
present  generation  existed;  so  the  consent  of  the  governed 
must  be  taken  for  granted  (except  as  changes  are  made  by  con- 
stitutional methods)  until  a  rebellion  arises. 

Suffrage  cannot  be  the  right  of  the  individual,  because  it 
does  not  exist  for  the  benefit  of  the  individual,  but  for  the 


486     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

benefit  of  the  state  itself.  "Unless  a  doctrine  is  susceptible  of 
being  given  practical  effect,  it  must  be  utterly  without  sub- 
stance" (Cooley's  Constitutional  Law);  and  this  doctrine  of  in- 
herent right  cannot  be  given  practical  effect,  since  this  would 
imply  that  minors,  insane,  idiots,  Indians,  and  Chinese  (now 
wholly  or  partially  restrained)  would  have  a  right  to  exer- 
cise the  franchise.  A  gift  from  nature  must  be  absolute,  and 
not  contingent  upon  the  state  to  prescribe  qualifications,  the 
possession  of  which  shall  be  the  test  of  right  of  enjoyment; 
and  no  restrictions  of  age  or  education  could  be  put  upon  it, 
such  as  now  exists.  Liberty  itself  must  come  from  law,  and 
cannot,  in  any  institutional  sense,  come  from  nature.  Eights, 
in  a  legal  sense,  are  born  of  restraints,  by  which  every  one 
may  be  protected  in  their  enjoyment  within  the  prescribed 
limits.  In  prescribing  limitations,  the  framers  of  the  Consti- 
tution showed  that  they  did  not  consider  suffrage  an  inherent 
right.  The  article  of  the  Bill  of  Eights  which  refers  to  in- 
alienable rights  has  nothing  whatever  to  say  about  suffrage. 

The  suffragists  claim  that  women  are  taxed  without  repre- 
sentation. Those  advancing  this  argument  exhibit  their  en- 
tire lack  of  understanding  of  the  theories  of  taxation  and  suf- 
frage, and  prove  that  they,  at  least,  are  not  yet  ready  to  enter 
intelligently  into  politics.  We  have  founded  our  government 
on  manhood  suffrage,  not  because  our  male  citizens  own  more 
or  less  property,  or  any  property  at  all,  but  because  they  are 
men;  because  behind  the  law  must  be  the  power  of  enforcing 
it.  Without  sufficient  force  to  compel  respect  and  observance, 
laws  would  be  dead  letters.  To  make  laws  that  cannot  be  en- 
forced, is  to  bring  a  government  into  ridicule  and  contempt, 
and  invite  anarchy!  The  insuperable  objection  to  woman  suf- 
frage is  fundamental  and  functional,  and  nature  alone  is  re- 
sponsible for  it,  since  she  has  created  man  combatant  and 
woman  non-combatant. 

The  reason  we  have  adopted  as  the  basis  of  our  political  sys- 
tem that  the  will  of  the  majority  must  prevail  over  that  of  the 
minority,  is  that  we  recognize  the  fact  that  the  majority  can, 
if  the  minority  rebel,  compel  them  to  acquiescence.  There- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  487 

fore,  suffrage  has  been  given  to  men,  because  they  can  back 
laws  by  force  enough  to  compel  respect  and  observance.  It 
becomes  thus  a  duty  to  be  performed,  not  a  privilege  to  be 
enjoyed,  and  women  are  exempt  because  of  what  it  would  en- 
tail; their  present  position  in  the  state,  as  its  mothers  and  edu- 
cators of  future  citizens,  being  held  as  more  than  equivalent  to 
any  political  service. 

The  duty  of  voting  is  in  no  sense  dependent — in  this  state 
at  least — upon  the  fact  that  the  voter  pays  taxes  or  owns  prop- 
erty. A  man  who  has  no  property  has  the  same  voice  in 
voting  as  the  millionaire.  Property  of  a  town,  city,  or  state  is 
justly  liable  for  the  current  expenses  of  the  government  which 
protects  such  property,  and  thus  increases  and  preserves  its 
value.  The  only  question  the  law  asks  is:  Is  there  prop- 
erty ?  If  so,  it  imposes  a  tax.  The  laws  of  taxation  are  gen- 
eral, and  not  particular,  taxation  being  simply  a  compensation 
to  the  government  for  protection  of  property,  that  such  prop- 
erty may  have  value.  Woman's  property  receives  exactly  the 
same  protection  as  man's  and  she  benefits  as  much  thereby; 
there  is  therefore  no  injustice  to  her. 

Mr.  Woolson  of  Lisbon — Although  I  have  not  consulted  my 
wife  and  mother-in-law,  and  do  not  know  what  their  wishes 
are  on  this  question,  I  shall  vote  in  favor  of  the  proposition 
of  the  gentleman  from  Warner,  Mr.  Thompson. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — I  hastened  through  my  former 
remarks  because  I  thought  the  vote  would  have  to  be  taken 
immediately.  I  wish  but  a  moment  longer.  I  wish  to  answer 
the  objection  raised  by  the  gentleman  from  Londonderry,  Mr. 
Pillsbury.  Napoleon  said  to  Mme.  de  Stael,  "I  consider  that 
woman  the  greatest  woman  in  the  land  who  is  the  mother  of  a 
large  family."  It  was  perfectly  natural  for  a  man  like  Na- 
poleon to  make  that  remark.  He  wanted  soldiers,  he  wanted 
men  to  stand  up  and  be  killed.  It  was  all  right  for  him  to 
make  that  remark,  but  it  would  seem  to  have  no  authority  in 
the  present  stage  of  our  civilization. 


488     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua — I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  Dis- 
cussion has  been  limited  to  five  minutes,  and  the  gentleman 
from  Concord  exhausted  his  five  minutes  in  his  first  speech., 
and  now  he  has  started  on  a  second  heat. 

The  Chairman — The  chair  decides  that  half  an  hour  was 
appropriated  to  this  discussion.  No  person  to  exceed  five  min- 
utes during  that  time.  The  gentleman  from  Concord,,  Mr. 
Lamprey,  had  five  minutes  and  took  his  seat,  and  then  an- 
other hour  was  put  upon  the  time  for  discussion.  Nothing 
was  said  that  a  speaker  should  not  speak  a  second  time,  and 
the  chair  rules  that  Mr.  Lamprey  has  the  privilege  of  speaking 
five  minutes.  He  has  but  two  minutes  more  and  should  make 
the  best  of  it. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — The  claim  has  been  made  that 
the  women  did  not  want  to  vote.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned,  it 
would  not  make  the  least  difference  in  the  world  whether  they 
did  or  not.  I  stand  here  on  the  eternal  principle  of  right. 
Though  there  were  but  one  woman  in  the  state  who  wanted  to 
vote,  I  would  vote  to  give  her  that  right.  Why,  gentlemen,  it 
is  recorded  in  history  that  when  the  Bastile  was  broken  down 
and  the  cells  were  entered  there  were  prisoners  chained  there, 
and  there  was  one  old  man  who  was  let  out  of  the  prison  and 
begged  to  be  taken  back  again.  He  had  been  there  so  long 
that  he  had  lost  the  sense  of  freedom.  The  women  have  been 
under  subjection  to  the  men  so  long  that  perhaps  a  majority 
of  them  have  lost  a  proper  sense  of  their  individual  rights,  but 
that  is  nothing  to  me. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter — I  did  not  propose  to  say  anything 
on  this  question.  I  had  made  up  my  mind  to  vote  in  favor  of 
the  proposition  in  some  way,  and  when  the  amendment  was 
presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  it 
struck  me  favorably.  It  seems  there  is  some  objection  to  it  on 
the  ground  that  it  requires  the  vote  of  the  women  in  order  to 
make  it  of  binding  force.  It  probably  does  not  make  much 
difference  to  the  gentleman  who  proposed  the  amendment 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  489 

whether  the  women  vote  upon  it  or  not,  and  I  rise  to  suggest 
that  the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  withdraw 
that  portion  of  his  amendment  which  seems  to  be  objection- 
able. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  am  being  drawn  into  this  deli- 
cate situation  deeper  than  I  intended.  I  want  it  distinctly  un- 
derstood that  my  judgment  as  a  man  is  against  the  proposition 
to  strike  the  word  "male"  from  the  Constitution.  I  think  it 
fair,  however,  to  the  women  that  they  should  have  this  ques- 
tion go  to  the  people.  I  supposed  it  would  be  fair  to  them  to 
have  it  go  to  their  own  sex  as  well  as  to  the  men,  and  I  believe 
it  is  a  matter  altogether  within  the  function  of  the  legislature 
to  determine  the  method  in  which  it  should  be  submitted  to 
the  people.  If  there  is  any  earthly  objection  to  allowing  the 
women  to  vote  upon  the  proposition,  I  withdraw  that  and  am 
willing  that  what  is  said  about  referring  it  to  the  women  be 
stricken  from  the  resolution  I  have  proposed. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester — I  would  like  to  have  the  amend- 
ment as  it  will  be  after  the  part  withdrawn  is  stricken  out  read 
so  that  we  may  all  know  what  we  are  voting  upon. 

(Clerk  reads  the  amendment  as  amended.) 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concojd — I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Littleton  if  it  is  his  purpose  to  get  two  thirds  of  all  the  legal 
voters  of  the  state  or  two  thirds  of  those  voting,  and  also  what 
objection  is  there,  he  having  been  gracious  enough  to  with- 
draw that  part  of  his  amendment  that  seemed  to  be  offensive 
—what  objection  is  there  why  he  is  not  willing  to  withdraw 
the  entire  amendment  and  let  the  vote  come  entirely  on  the 
proposition  submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  "Warner,  Mr. 
Thompson? 

The  Chairman — The  gentleman  from  Concord  asks  a  ques- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich. 

Mr.  Aldrich — Here  it  is  again,  Mr.  Chairman.  I  have  stated 


490     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

several  times  that  I  think  it  fair  to  the  women  that  this  ques- 
tion should  be  submitted  to  all  the  people.  My  belief  is,,  that 
if  the  members  of  this  Convention  feel  bound  by  their  judg- 
ment, the  main  proposition  will  be  voted  down  and  the  women 
who  have  so  graciously  and  gracefully  addressed  the  Conven- 
tion will  be  turned  away  without  any  remedy.  My  proposition 
will  permit  such  men  as  myself  and  others  who  believe  as  I  do. 
to  conscientiously  submit  this  question  of  woman  suffrage  to 
the  people;  while  if  we  vote  upon  the  other  proposition  we 
must  either  vote  against  the  women  or  vote  against  our  con- 
science. For  that  reason  I  decline  now,  and  shall  decline,  to 
withdraw  the  proposed  amendment, 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentleman 
whether,  in  his  opinion,  this  Convention  can  authorize  the  leg- 
islature to  do  anything  which  the  legislature  has  not  the 
power  to  do.  We  cannot  set  aside  the  fundamental  law  of  the 
state. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — My  answer  is  that  we  are  making 
a  constitution  and  not  setting  aside  a  constitution. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  am  opposed  to  the  question 
being  put  in  the  manner  in  which  it  is  put  by  the  gentleman 
from  Littleton.  I  propose  to  vote  upon  the  direct  question  £o 
submit  this  matter  to  the  people.  On  that  question  I  shall 
vote  "Yes." 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton,  to  amend  the  reso- 
lution of  Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner,  is  stated  by  the  chair,  and 
on  a  viva  voce  vote  is  declared  lost. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — Unless  there  are  gentlemen  who 
desire  to  proceed  in  the  discussion,  I  will  move  that  the  com- 
mittee arise  and  report  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Thompson  of 
Warner  favorably.  I  will  withdraw  that  if  anybody  desires  to 
speak. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  is  stated  by  the  chair  and  carried. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  491 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Kent,  chairman,  reported  that  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole  had  had  under  consideration  the  proposed  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  offered  by  Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner,  re- 
lating to  woman's  suffrage,  and  had  voted  to  rise  and  report 
the  resolution  favorably. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  report  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  be  accepted?"  a  division  was  called  for 
and  resulted  in  151  gentlemen  voting  in  the  affirmative  and 
102  gentlemen  voting  in  the  negative,  and  the  report  of  the 
committee  was  declared  adopted. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry,  nine  other  members  concur- 
ring, called  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester  moved  that  the  resolution  be  laid 
upon  the  table.  The  motion  did  not  prevail. 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative: 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Kimball  of  Danville,  Kelsea  of 
Deerfield,  Eastman,  Follansby,  Leddy,  Hooke,  Sanborn  of 
Hampstead,  Weare,  Shaw,  Chase  of  Kingston,  Pollard,  Evans, 
Gate,  Kelsey  of  Nottingham,  Howard,  Norris,  Ham,  Cullen, 
Sawyer  of  Rye,  Wheeler,  Locke  of  Seabrook,  Jewell  of  South 
Hampton,  Clark  of  Windham. 

STKAFFOKD  COUNTY.  Morang,  Folsom,  Nute  of  Dover, 
Nutter  of  Farmington,  Willson  of  Farmington,  Moore,  Cham- 
berlain, Nute  of  Rochester,  Meader,  Springfield,  Edgerly. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY.  Demeritt,  Colbath,  Cogswell,  Gorrell, 
Smith  of  Meredith,  Smith  of  New  Hampton,  Rogers. 

CAEEOLL  COUNTY.  Nickerson,  Gibson,  Morrill  of  Conway, 
Harmon,  Merrow,  Murch,  Meserve,  Gilman,  Brown  of  Ossipee, 
Page  of  Tarn  worth,  Morrison  of  Tuftonborough,  Clow. 

MEEEIMACK  COUXTY.     Stone  of  Andover,  Baker,  Frame, 


492     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Dudley  of  Concord,  Foote,  Hollis  Lyford,  Niles,  Lamprey  of 
Concord,  Ingalls,  Chandler,  Dolbeer,  Putnam,  Wyatt,  Green 
of  Pittsfield,  Thompson  of  Warner. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Hubbard,  Kimball  of  Benning- 
ton,  Fessenden,  Downes,  Bacon,  Powers  of  Hollis,  Clyde,  Wil- 
kinson, Briggs,  Little,  Eose,  Farrington,  Harvey,  Allen, 
McQuesten,  Powers  of  Manchester,  McElroy,  Greager,  Whita- 
ker  of  Mason,  Worcester,  Hamblett,  Clough  of  Nashua,  Wason 
of  Nashua,  Eunnells,  Flather,  Desmarais,  Dodge  of  New  Bos- 
ton, Blanchard,  Morrison  of  Peterborough,  Scott,  Hadley, 
Simons. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Cooke,  Amidon,  Blake,  Poole,  An- 
nett,  Newell,  Buckminster,  Eugg,  Clement  of  Surry,  Good- 
now. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY.  Mitchell  of  Acworth,  Brooks,  Eos- 
siter,  Fairbanks,  Ide,  Hanson  of  Goshen,  Noyes,  Bartlett, 
Newton. 

GRAFTON  COUNTY.  Carbee,  Ashley,  Cumings,  Parker  of 
Franconia,  Pike  of  Haverhill,  Dewey,  Woolson,  Morris,  Mel- 
vin,  Warden,  Eussell,  Woodbury  of  Woodstock. 

Coos  COUNTY.  Paine,  Miles,  Titus,  Britton,  Crawford, 
Kent,  Perkins,  McKellips,  Blanchard,  Watson,  Philbrook, 
Aldrich  of  Whitefield. 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative: 

EOCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Sanborn  of  Auburn,  Flanders  of 
Brentwood,  Sanders,  Fuller,  Towle,  Pillsbury,  Ham. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY.  Cochrane,  Gunnison,  Libby,  Leary, 
Hall  of  Strafford. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY.  Morrill  of  Gilford,  Thompson  of  La- 
conia,  Fellows. 

CARROLL  COUNTY.     Hobson,  Dorr,  Sanborn  of  Wakeneld. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY.  Buxton,  French  of  Bradford,  Vir- 
gin, Mitchell  of  Concord,  Foster,  Walker  of  Concord,  Howe, 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  493 

Casey,  Ford  of  Danbury,  Leach,  dough,  of  London,  Chicker- 
ing,  Truesdell,  Webster,  Sawyer  of  Salisbury,  Lang. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Whitaker  of  Peering,  Peavey, 
Fogg,  Smith  of  Hillsborough,  Tarbell,  Lambert,  Cross,  Green 
of  Manchester,  Jones,  Lord,  Hill,  Starr,  Sullivan,  Griffin, 
Quirin  Joseph,  Clement  of  Manchester,  Hall  of  Manchester, 
Trinity,  Raymond,  Spring,  Woodbury  of  Nashua,  Shedd,  Sea- 
vey,  Chapman. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Learned,  Farwell,  Buckley,  Hall  of 
Keene,  McClure,  Stone  of  Troy. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY.      Holmes,  Brockway. 

GRAFTON  COUNTY.  Bucklin,  Parker  of  Benton,  Morrill  of 
Bridgewater,  Chase  of  Bristol,  Pulsifer  of  Campton,  Richard- 
son of  Canaan,  Walker  of  Grafton,  Ward,  Colby  of  Hanover, 
Sloane,  Jewell  of  Hebron,  Drake,  Aldrich  of  Littleton,  Morse, 
Stoddard,  French  of  Orange,  Ford  of  Piermont,  Wentworth, 
Craig  of  Rumney,  Green  of  Waterville. 

Coos  COUNTY.  Laplante,  Rich,  Daley,  Boudreau,  Young 
of  Clarksville,  Pike  of  Stark,  Hinman. 

And  143  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  94 
in  the  negative,  the  affirmative  prevailed  and  the  report  of 
the  committee  was  accepted. 

After  the  roll  had  been  called,  but  before  the  vote  was  de- 
clared, Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry  and  Mr.  Sanborn  of 
Auburn,  who  voted  in  the  negative,  changed  their  votes  to  the 
affirmative. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry  gave  notice  that  on  to-mor- 
row, or  some  subsequent  day,  he  would  move  a  reconsidera- 
tion of  the  vote  whereby  the  Convention  voted  to  adopt  the 
favorable  report  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  upon  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Warner,  Mr.  Thompson,  in 
amendment  of  article  twenty-seven,  part  second,  of  the  Con- 
stitution. 


494     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  move  to  reconsider  the  vote  at 
this  time,  and  to  lay  the  motion  upon  the  table  until  more  of 
the  members  shall  be  present.  The  motion  prevailed,  and  the 
motion  to  reconsider  was  laid  upon  the  table. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  for  the  purpose  of 
considering  the  various  resolutions  relating  to  trusts. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention:  It  is  not  my  intention  to  detain  the  Com- 
mittee long  at  this  time.  Indeed,  I  have  purposely  avoided 
preparing  to  speak  upon  trusts,  for  I  am  conscious  it  would  be 
difficult  to  keep  a  speech,  prepared  on  the  subject  in  hand, 
within  any  reasonable  limits.  Moreover,  I  have  thought  this 
subject  had  been  so  fully  considered  by  the  people  at  large, 
and  by  the  members  of  this  Convention,  that  the  latter  would 
be  prepared  to  act  without  any  extended  debate. 

The  proposition  which  I  have  submitted  for  an  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  is  as  follows: 

"Individual  enterprise  and  competition  in  trade  should  be 
protected1  against  monopolies  which  tend  to  hinder  or  destroy 
them.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  limit  the  size 
and  functions  of  all  corporations,  to  prohibit  fictitious  capital- 
ization therein,  and  to  so  provide  for  their  supervision  and 
government  that  they  will  be  the  servants  and  not  the  masters 
of  the  people." 

I  also  read  the  following  amendment: 

"The  legislature  shall  have  power  to  define,  regulate,  pro- 
hibit, or  dissolve  trusts,  monopolies,  or  combinations  whether 
existing  in  the  form  of  a  corporation  or  otherwise." 

This  last  proposition  with  the  first  words  "The  congress'' 
instead  of  "The  legislature,"  has  the  merit  of  having  received 
the  votes  of  all  the  Republican  members  of  the  house  of  rep- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  495 

resentatives  in  congress.  It  was  opposed  by  the  Democrats 
solely  on  the  ground  that  they  believed  the  states  alone  should 
exercise  exactly  that  power;  so  that,  when  the  proposition  is 
now  presented,  not  to  congress,  but  to  a  state  legislature,  it  is 
in  a  form  to  receive  the  approbation  of  this  whole  Convention 
precisely  as  it  received  in  its  spirit  the  unanimous  approba- 
tion of  the  house  of  representatives  at  Washington. 

The  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Starr,  has  offered  an 
amendment  in  these  words: 

"Amend  article  eighty-two  by  adding  thereto  the  following: 

"And,  further,  full  power  is  hereby  granted  to  the  said  gen- 
eral court  to  enact  laws  to  prevent,  by  civil  and  criminal  pro- 
cess, the  operations  within  the  state  of  any  trust  or  corpora- 
tion, foreign  or  domestic,  which  endeavors  to  raise  the  price 
of  any  article  of  commerce  by  restraint  of  trade,  monopoly,  or 
other  unfair  means;  to  control  and  regulate  the  acts  of  all  cor- 
porations doing  business  within  the  state,  and  prevent  their 
encroachments  upon  the  liberties  of  the  people." 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the  Committee,  it  is 
my  purpose  to  request  from  the  Committee  an  expression  in 
favor  of  a  Constitutional  amendment  prohibiting  trusts  and 
requiring  the  legislature  of  the  state  to  deal  with  trusts  for 
the  purpose  of  preventing  monopoly,  and  if  such  a  vote  is 
given,  I  shall  be  perfectly  willing  to  have  the  precise  language 
of  the  Constitutional  amendment  considered  and  fixed  by  the 
appropriate  committee;  because  I  hold,  Mr.  Chairman  and 
gentlemen,  that  inasmuch  as  we  are  amending  the  funda- 
mental law  of  the  state,  we  ought  to  be  extremely  careful 
about  the  language  used. 

As  you  all  know,  an  unobjectionable  principle  may  some- 
times be  expressed  in  objectionable  terms,  and  so  what  I  de- 
sire is  to  put  a  direction  or  a  command  into  the  Constitution 
in  the  most  precise  language  in  which  the  amendment  can  be 
framed. 

Now  I  will  read  from  the  platforms  of  th*e  two  political 
parties  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire. 

The  Democratic  state  convention  of  September  10,  1902, 
contained  the  following  plank: 


496     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

"STATE  ISSUES. — State  control  of  trusts.  We  demand  the 
enactment  of  state  laws  to  prevent  by  civil  and  criminal  pro- 
cess, the  operations  within  the  state  of  any  trust  or  corpora- 
tion which  endeavors  to  raise  the  price  of  any  article  of  com- 
merce by  restraint  of  trade,  monopoly,  or  other  unfair  means." 

The  above  plan  is  entirely  limited  to  the  control  of  monop- 
olies and  unfair  trade,  but  I  desire  to  have  recorded  our  inflex- 
ible opposition,  not  only  to  the  evils  of  monopolies,  but  also 
to  all  menaces  from  corporations,  complete  control  of  which 
corporations  should  be  given  to  the  legislature. 

The  Republican  convention  was  held  on  September  17, 
1902,  and  in  the  platform  of  that  party  are  found  these  words: 

"While  we  favor  legitimate  combinations  of  capital  which 
will  reduce  the  price  of  necessities  to  the  people,  we  condemn 
any  such  combinations  as  will  restrict  business  and  throttle 
competition  by  unjust  and  tyrannical  practices." 

Here  we  see,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  that  the  man- 
dates of  our  two  political  parties,  so  far  as  such  mandates  may 
have  any  effect  upon  future  legislators  and  delegates  to  such 
a  convention  as  this,  have  been  issued  in  favor  of  some  suit- 
able action  against  trusts  and  we  only  need  appropriate  lan- 
guage in  which  to  express  the  idea  which  we  wish  to  express. 

It  may  be  asked,  Why  is  it  necessary  to  adopt  constitutional 
amendments  on  this  subject?  Has  not  the  legislature  of  New 
Hampshire  now  the  power  to  legislate  against  trusts  and  mo- 
nopolies? 

I  answer,  I  think  the  legislature  has  such  power,  but  we  are 
assembled  here  to  give  the  people's  instructions  through  this 
Convention,  to  the  future  legislatures  of  this  state,  and  we  are 
justified,  nay,  more,  we  are  required,  I  think,  to  give  the  same 
commands  to  the  legislature  of  our  state  which  other  states 
have  felt  impelled  to  give  to  their  legislatures. 

In  order  to  avoid  detaining  the  Convention  by  submitting 
extracts  from  the  Constitutions  and  laws  of  the  several  states, 
I  prepared  and  the  Convention  has  printed  a  very  interesting 
paper  which  I  ask  delegates  to  read  (Document  of  Tables  No. 
102).  It  appears  that  fourteen  states  of  this  Union  have  not 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  11,  1902.  497 

deemed  it  sufficient  to  rely  upon  the  powers  which  have  hith- 
erto existed  in  legislatures  to  control  trusts,  to  prevent  mo- 
nopolies, and  to  provide  for  competition  in  trade,  and  these 
fourteen  states  have  adopted  from  time  to  time  constitutional 
amendments  directed  against  trusts.  These  amendments  are 
all  printed,  and  in  addition  there  is  printed  the  full  and  ex- 
plicit title  of  the  Georgia  act.  The  acts  are  long  and  refer- 
ences are  made  to  them  in  this  printed  paper  which  is  before 
you,  and  you  can  see  for  yourselves  that  the  people  of  these 
fourteen  states  deemed  it  insufficient  to  wait  for  such  action 
of  their  legislatures  as  might  be  taken  without  the  stimulus  of 
a  constitutional  requirement. 

In  twenty-five  of  the  states  there  have  been  statutes  passed; 
— in  ten,  trusts  are  prohibited  both  by  constitutions  and  by 
laws, — leaving  only  sixteen  states  of  the  Union  which  have 
not  hitherto  acted  upon  this  subject,  either  by  their  constitu- 
tions or  their  laws. 

Xow,  Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  this  is  the  general  sit- 
uation, and  I  need  not  enter  into  a  debate  here  in  order  to 
demonstrate  to  you  the  importance  to  the  community  in 
which  we  live — the  importance  to  every  free  community — of 
individual  enterprise. 

The  foundation  of  society  is  the  effort  of  every  individual 
man  to  make  something  of  himself  in  the  community  in 
which  he  lives;  and  the  foundation  of  national  prosperity  is 
the  effort  of  every  individual  to  secure  his  personal  prosperity. 
Whatever  crushes  out  the  individual,  whatever  keeps  down 
the  many  striving  to  get  a  living,  striving  to  make  money, 
striving  to  accumulate  property,  tends  in  the  end  to  the  in- 
jury of  the  whole  people.  These  principles  are  well  recog- 
nized, and  the  progress  of  society  is  involved  in  the  right  of 
acquiring  private  property,  and  it  never  was  intended  since 
the  beginning  of  civilization  that  the  industries  in  any  coun- 
try should  be  controlled  by  a  few  men. 

But  I  will  not  this  afternoon,  and  I  think  that  I  shall  not, 
if  there  is  to  be  only  brief  discussion,  endeavor  at  any  time  to 
set  forth  the  general  facts  which  prove  that  the  trusts  and  mo- 
32 


498    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

nopolies  and  the  suppression  of  competition  in  trade  are  an 
injury  to  society,  nor  to  state  why  trusts  and  monopolies  and 
the  suppression  of  competition  need  to  be  dealt  with,  by  both 
the  constitutions  and  laws  of  the  states  of  the  Union.  If  the 
debate  is  prolonged,  I  may  take  occasion  to  exhibit  to  the 
Convention  the  constitution  and  character  of  the  United 
States  Steel  Corporation,  taking  that  as  an  illustration  of  the 
consolidations  of  capital  that  are  taking  place  in  the  United 
States  at  this  time.  But  for  the  present,  I  yield  the  floor  to 
another  gentleman  who  desires  to  discuss  the  subject. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord  moved  that  the  Committee  arise, 
report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit  again.  The  motion  pre- 
vailed. 

In  Convention. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Baker,  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  re- 
ported that  the  Committee  had  had  under  consideration  the 
general  subject  of  trusts,  and  had  voted  to  rise,  report  prog- 
ress, and  ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

Leave  was  granted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lang  of  Bedford,  the  Convention  ad- 
journed. 


FKIDAY,  DECEMBER,  12,  1902. 

The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment.- 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 
Prayer  was  offered  by  the  chaplain. 
The  reading  of  the  journal  having  been  begun,  on  motion 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  12,  1902.  499 

of  Mr.  Webster  of  Pittsfield,  the  rules  were  so  far  suspended 
that  further  reading  was  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  Daley  of  Berlin  gave  notice  that  he  should  move  to 
adjourn  at  11:30  o'clock  in  the  forenoon. 

Mr.  Knight  of  Milford,  from  the  Committee  on  Mileage, 
submitted  the  following  report: 

"Resolved,  That  each  member  be  allowed  the  number  of 
miles  travel  set  opposite  his  name  in  the  list  submitted,  and 
that  the  secretary  be  instructed  to  make  up  the  mileage  roll 
of  the  Convention  in  accordance  therewith." 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

MILEAGE  ROLL. 

Abbott,  Charles  W 60 

Abbott,  Jacob  J 40 

Adams,  Edward  H 120 

Aldrich,  David  M 260 

Aldrich,  Edgar 230 

Allen,  Henry  W 38 

Amidon,  George  F 202 

Annett,  Albert 190 

Ashley,  Herbert  H 131 

Avery,  Bert  H 128 

Bacon,  Stephen  H 160 

Baker,  Henry  M 5 

Bales,  George  E 104 

Bartlett,  George  H 80 

Barton,  Jesse  M *. 84 

Battles,  Daniel  F 134 

Blake,  Amos  J 192 

Blanchard,  Edwin  F 176 

Blanchard,  Harvey  A 376 

Blodgett,  Frank  E 16 


500     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Blodgett,  Isaac  N 40 

Boivin,  Joseph  A 40 

Boudreau,  James  A 310 

Boutwell,  Henry  W 40 

Bowles,  Marshall  A 138 

Bradley,  Arthur  C 86 

Briggs,  James  F 36 

Britton,  Frank 260 

Brockway,  Willie  D 72 

Brooks,  Lyman 134 

Brown,  Joseph  L 74 

Brown,  Levi  W 242 

Bryar,  Fred  E 52 

Buckley,  Fred  A ' 166 

Bucklin,  Alpheus  S 76 

Buckminster,  Charles  W 140 

Burley,  Harrison  G 104 

Burpee,  Moses  P 106 

Busiel,  John  T 56 

Buxton,  Willis  G 14 

Caldwell,  Horace 20 

Carbee,  Henry  C 196 

Casey,  Michael "? 

Cass,  Lewis  E 156 

Cate,  Charles  F 60 

Chamberlin,  Horatio  G 166 

Chandler,  William  E 2 

Chapman,  Joseph  C 64 

Chase,  Amos  C 128 

Chase,  Ira  A 66 

Chesley,   Daniel 120 

Chickering,  Jacob  E 14 

Clark,  Allan  C 86 

Clark,  George  H 70 

Clement,  Frank  0 38 

Clement,  Stephen  H 140 

Clough,  Jeremiah  A 26 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  12,  1902.  501 

dough,  Joseph  L 70 

Clow,  Stephen  W 200 

Clyde,  George  W 72 

Cochrane,  George  E 132 

Cogswell,   Thomas 108 

Colbath,  Horace  N 60 

Colby,  George  W 52 

Colby,  Ira  G 110 

Colby,  James  F 152 

Cole,  Wallace  W 80 

Collins,  Clinton 116 

Collins,  John  S 144 

Colman,  Dudley  C 200 

Conley,  Elmer  E 146 

Cooke,  Charles  H 186 

Corey,  Guy  E 120 

Craig,  Charles  C 114 

Craig,  Eockwell  F 162 

Crawford,  George  W 276 

Cross,  David : 40 

Cullen,  William  A.  A 120 

Cumings,    Henry 118 

Daley,  Daniel  J 312 

Davis,  Carlos  C 154 

Day,  Auburn  J „ 140 

Dearborn,  Henry  C ^  .  92 

Dearborn,  Luther  E 288 

Demeritt,  George  H 180 

Desmarais,    Leon 72 

Dewey,  Jesse  E 130 

Dodge,  James  E 36 

Dodge,  Lendell 64 

Dodge,  William  F 260 

Dolbeer,  John  H 36 

Dole,  Charles  A 130 

Dorr,  Henry  F 120 

Downes,  George  E 134 


502     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Drake,  Charles  B 130 

Dresser,  John 120 

Drew,  Irving  W 270 

Dudley,  David  F .-  14 

Dudley,  Jason  H 350 

Earley,  Thomas,  Jr 72 

Eastman,  Edwin  G 114 

Eaton,  George  E 66 

Edgerly,  James  A 130 

Emery,  Samuel  W 120 

Emery,  Simon  P 120 

Emory,  Warren  W 192 

Evans,  Alfred  E 306 

Evans,  David  H 130 

Everett,  Edward  H 74 

Fairbanks,  George  E 126 

Farrington,  Henry  A 36 

Farwell,  Frank  C 104 

Fellows,  William  B 36 

Fessenden,  Orville  D 142 

Flanders,  Ephraim  G r . . .  92 

Flanders,  Robert  L 112 

Flather,  William  J 72 

Flood,  John  J 72 

Fogg,  George  H 92 

Follansby,  William  H.  C 110 

Folsom,  Channing 122 

Foote,  Charles  E 12 

Ford,  Edward 190 

Ford,  John  V ; 78 

Foskett,  Liberty  W 130 

Foster,  William  A 2 

Frame,  James 14 

French,  John  E 56 

French,  John  H 110 

Frink,  John  S.  H 110 

Fuller,  Arthur  0 110 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  12,  1902.  503 

Furbush,  George  P 140 

Gelinas,  Gaspard  A 140 

Gerrish,  Fred  E 120 

Gibson,  James  L 304 

Gillispie,  Charles  F 60 

Gilman,  Samuel  J -.  262 

Gilmore,  George  C 42 

Glancy,  William  F 40 

Glazier,  Van  B 210 

Goodnow,  Edwin  J 158 

Goodwin,  Andrew  J 104 

Gordon,  Francis  A 54 

Gorrell,  Horace  W 56 

Greager,  Herman 40 

Green,  George  H 140 

Green,  Henry  F 230 

Green,  Oliver  B 40 

Greene,  Frank  P 56 

Griffin,  Dennis  F 40 

Grover,  Horace  T 84 

Guerin,    Moise 40 

Gunnison,  William  T 140 

Hadley,  Herbert  0 162 

Hall,  Dwight 122 

Hall,  Frank  H 182 

Hall,  James  M 40 

Hall,  William  C 130 

Hallinan,  Stephen  L 72 

Ham,  Samuel  F 118 

Hamblett,  Charles  J 72 

Hanson,  Burnham 124 

Hanson,  Frank  L 94 

Harmon,  Horace  W 250 

Harriman,  Walter  C 72 

Hartley,  William  H 272 

Harvey,  Warren 40 

Head,  Eugene  S 18 


504     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Healey,  James  M 76 

Henry,  James  E 152 

Hersey,  Fred  E 200 

Hibbard,  Clarence  E 130 

Hildreth,  Eugene  E 44 

Hildreth,  Henry  A 250 

Hill,  Bushrod  W 40 

Hinman,  Havilah  B 320 

Hobson,  Sewell  M 292 

Hollis,  Abijah 6 

Holman,  Samuel  W 54 

Holmes,  Herbert  A 166 

Hooke,  Lincoln  F 124 

Horan,  Timothy  E 40 

Howard,  Alfred  F 112 

Howe,  DeWitt  C 2 

Hubbard,  Eugene  C 80 

Hunt,  Nathan  P 40 

Ide,  Daniel ._....  102 

Ingalls,  Horace  L 4 

Irwin,  Fred  T 40 

Jennings,   Henry 40 

Jewell,  Benjamin  K 80 

Jewell,  Edward  M 168 

Jewett,  Stephen  S . . . . . 58 

Johnson,  Thomas  F 340 

Jones,  Edwin  F 40 

Jordan,  John 

Kelsey,  James  H 100 

Kelsey,  John  M 100 

Kent,  Henry  0 270 

Kidder,  Daniel 126 

Kimball,  Benjamn  A 

Kimball,  Charles  H 72 

Kimball,  Eugene  F 126 

Kiniry,  William  H 186 

Knight,  Carl  E i 94 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  12,  1902.  505 

Knowles,  Charles  H 84 

Knox,  James  E 52 

Lambert,  Elliot  C 40 

Lamprey,  George  W 190 

Lamprey,  Maitland  C 2 

Lang,  Frank  A 34 

Laplante,  Louis  M 310 

Leach,  Edward  G 40 

Learned,  Henry  D 110 

Leary,  Michael  J 150 

Leddy,  John 82 

Ledoux,  Henri  T 74 

Leighton,  George  1 126 

Lewis,  Edwin  C 56 

Lihby,  Joseph 150 

Little,  Cyrus  H 40 

Littlefield,  John  C 42 

Locke,  Alphonzo  B 122 

Locke,  James  A 150 

Locke,  John  W 150 

Lord,  Harry  T 40 

Lyf ord,  James  0 2 

Madden,  Joseph 130 

Marsh,  Jonathan  A 42 

McAllister,  George  1 40 

McClure,  Cummings  B 100 

McDonough,  Joseph  M 40 

McElroy,    William 40 

McGlynn,  Michael 72 

McKay,  William  J 82 

McKellips,  George  W 296 

McQuesten,  John  K 40 

Meader,  Stephen  C 140 

Melvin,    George 174 

Merrow,  Arthur  P 260 

Meserve,  Jonathan 336 

Messer,  George  J 70 


506     JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Miles,  Charles  S 258 

Miller,  George  E 14 

Mitchell,  Abraham  M, 112 

Mitchell,  John  M 2 

Moffett,  John  D 310 

Moore,  James  D 190 

Morang,  Charles  H 136 

Morin,  Oliver 150 

Merrill,  Frank  E 120 

Morrill,  Henry  H 146 

Morrill,  James  E 58 

Morrill,  Joel  E 292 

Morris,  George  F 208 

Morrison,  Charles  E 122 

Morrison,  John  D 218 

Morrison,  Mortier  L 92 

Morse,  Harry  M 228 

Moulton,  Charles  T ^ 124 

Murch,  Merville  B 338 

Murphy,  Patrick  W 120 

Murray,  Charles  A 310 

Nealley,  John  H : 122 

Nettle,  Albert 40 

Newell,  Hiram  F 130 

Newton,  Charles  A 94 

Nickerson,  Archie '. . . .  289 

Niles,  Edward  C 2 

Norris,  True  L 120 

Noyes,  Loren  A 110 

Nute,  Andrew  E 146 

Nute,  John  H 120 

Nutter,  George  W 132 

Nutter,  Henry  C 172 

Osgood,  George  W 100 

Page,  Horace  A 226 

Paige,  David  A 56 

Paige,  Nelson  W 45 


FHIDAY,  DECEMBER  12,  1902.  507 

Paine,  William  H 310 

Park,  William  R.,  Jr 142 

Parker,  Edward  E 72 

Parker,  Lebina  H 206 

Parker,  Wilbur  F 240 

Paul,  Clarence  H 122 

Peaslee,  Daniel  M 140 

Peavey,  George  S 128 

Peirce,  George  W 154 

Penniman,  Robert  R 134 

Perkins,  Napoleon  B 296 

Philbrook,  Charles  E 360 

Phipps,  Learned  K 328 

Pike,  Edwin  B 168 

Pike,  William  T 302 

Pillsbury,  Rosecrans  W 60 

Plante,  Joseph  G 40 

Plummer,  Bard  B 170 

Pollard,  Christopher  A 100 

Poole,  Joel  H 198 

Powers,  Edward  J 40 

Powers,  Marcellus  J 100 

Precourt,  Albert  J 40 

Pressler,  Adolph  W 128 

Proctor,  Clayton  B 72 

Provost,  Frank  T 40 

Pulsifer,  Charles  L 58 

Pulsifer,  Charles  W 116 

Putnam,  George  M 28 

Quirin,  Eugene 40 

Quirin,  Joseph 40 

Raymond,  Charles  H 100 

Rich,  George  F 310 

Richards,  Seth  M 86 

Richardson,  Milton  A 104 

Richardson,  Warren  B 104 

Richer,  Joseph 40 


•508     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Rideout,  Henry  M 330 

Ripley,  Leon  D 362 

Roberts,  William  H 120 

Robinson,  Edwin  R 40 

De  Rochemont,  Frederic  W 142 

Rogers,  Charles  C 38 

Rose,  Clarence  E 42 

Rossiter,  George  P 114 

Rotch,  William  B 94 

Roy,  Clement 150 

Rugg,  Daniel  W 138 

Runnells,  Frederic  D 72 

Russell,  Frank  W 104 

Sanborn,  Edward  B.  S 36 

Sanborn,  Henry  C 66 

Sanborn,  Jeremy  L 34 

Sanborn,  John  C 108 

Sanborn,  John  W 174 

Sanders,  Walter  R 66 

Sawyer,  Edward  1ST 50 

Sawyer,   Horace 136 

Scott,  Charles 92 

Seavey,  Charles  L 90 

Shaw,  Weare  N 108 

Shedd,  Albert 72 

Shute,  Calvin  T 142 

Simons,    George 78 

Slattery,  Joseph  T 76 

Sloane,  Scott 186 

Smith,  George  F 76 

Smith,  John  B 54 

Smith,  Kenrick  W 62 

Spaulding,  Frank  A 181 

Spencer,  William *  314 

Springfield,  George  H 144 

Spring,  John  R 72 

Starr,  William  J 40 


FKIDAY,  DECEMBER  12,  1902.  509s 

Stearns,  Willis  D 170 

Stockwell,  George  T 114 

Stoddard,  Willard  A 210 

Stone,  George  E 38 

Stone,  George  W 60- 

Stone,  Melvin  T 200 

Streeter,  Frank  S 2 

Sullivan,  Michael  E 40 

Taft,  James  S 130 

Tarbell,  Walter  S 112 

Tenney,  Edward  J 110 

Thompson,    Arthur 38 

Thompson,  Edwin  P 52 

Thurston,  Eemember  B 400 

Titus,  Charles  C 364 

Todd,  Jacob  H 78 

Tonery,  Michael 40 

Towle,  John  W 140 

Towne,  Omar  A 40- 

Tremblay,  Joseph  0 40 

Trinity,  Joseph  F 42 

Truesdell,  Edmund  E 14 

Virgin,  Fales  P 2 

Walker,  John .' 106 

Walker,  Joseph  E 9& 

Walker,  Eeuben  E 2 

Ward,  Edwin  D 60 

Ward,    Simon 150 

Warden,  Alexander 210 

Warner,  Franklin  G 72 

Wason,  Edward  H 72 

Watson,  Laban  M 294 

Way,  Osmon  B lift 

Weare,  Benjamin  F 150 

Webb,  John  W 102 

Webster,  Edward  K 50> 

Wentworth,  Alvin  F 104 


510     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Westgate,  Tyler 170 

Wetherell,  Albert  S 112 

Wheeler,  Benjamin  E 80 

Whitaker,  Hermon 144 

Whitaker,  William  F. 69 

Whittier,  Moses  T 2 

Wight,  Adam  W 340 

Wight,  Joseph  H 312 

Wilkins,  Charles  A 40 

Wilkinson,  Euf us 40 

Willson,  Edward  T 158 

Wilson,  Eoyal  L 54 

Wingate,  Joseph  C.  A 100 

Woodbury,  Arthur  K 72 

W^oodbury,  Elmer  E 136 

Woodbury,   Gordon 44 

Woolson,  Augustus  A 208 

Woodward,  Clement  J 130 

Worcester,  George  A 94 

Wright,  Charles,  2d 130 

Wyatt,  Otis  C , 42 

Young,  Charles  A 252 

Young,  Willis  E , 374 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth,  the  resolution 
introduced  by  him  relating  to  the  educational  qualification  of 
voters,  was  withdrawn  from  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton  moved  that  all  resolutions  relating 
to  the  increase  of  the  senate  be  either  taken  from  the  table 
or  withdrawn  from  Committee  of  the  Whole,  wherever  they 
may  be,  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  De- 
partment, and  it  was  so  ordered  by  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham,  the  resolution  of- 
fered by  him  to  strike  out  the  word  "subject"  from  the  Bill 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  12,  1902.  511 

of  Eights,  was  withdrawn  from  Committee  of  the  Whole  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Bill  of  Rights. 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord — I  wish  to  move  that  the  several  reso- 
lutions in  amendment  of  article  six  of  the  Bill  of  Rights, 
which  at  a  previous  session  of  the  Convention  were  referred  to 
the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Department, 
be  withdrawn  from  that  committee  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  together  with  the  resolution  on  the  same 
subject  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  have  no  objection  to  that  proceeding. 
Individually  I  am  in  favor  of  it,  but  I  think  there  was  a  little 
error  in  statement  on  the  part  of  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Mies.  If  my  memory  serves  me,  a  vote  was  never 
taken  on  them  and  they  axe  still  in  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole. 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord — My  resolution  was  referred  on  my 
own  motion  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Execu- 
tive Department,  and  that  of  Mr.  Baker  was  referred  to  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  motion  was  made  that  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  should  be 
taken  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Department,  and 
that  motion  was  pending  when  the  Committee  of  the  Whole 
arose. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — That  is  correct. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — Would  it  not  be  well  to  ask  the 
Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Department  to 
render  their  report  before  we  take  this  matter  out  of  the 
hands  of  that  committee?  It  seems  to  me  that  would  be  the 
usual  course  to  take.  Let  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights 
and  Executive  Department  make  a  report  on  this  resolution 
and  if  they  fail  to  give  us  the  report,  then  ask  that  the  reso- 
lution be  recalled.  It  seems  to  me  this  is  an  improper  and 


512    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

unusual  proceeding  to  take  the  resolution  from  that  com- 
mittee without  giving  them  an  opportunity  to  report. 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord — There  is  nothing  in  this  except 
simply  an  attempt  to  do  what  I  understand  everyone  wants,, 
and  to  do  just  what  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker, 
wanted  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  the  other  day,  namely, 
to  get  the  whole  thing  into  the  hands  of  some  committee, 
either  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  De- 
partment or  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  The  measures  can 
be  considered  together,  and  it  has  seemed  to  us  all  that  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole  is  the  proper  place  to  consider  them. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — It  is  an  unusual  proceeding,  as 
this  matter  has  already  been  referred  to  a  special  committee. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  simply  rise  to  state  that  there 
seems  to  be  a  misapprehension  between  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Niles,  and  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr. 
Hamblett,  in  respect  to  the  situation.  The  several  proposi- 
tions are  now  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  the  propo- 
sition as  I  understood  it  was  to  follow  in  the  line  of  the 
other  motions  made  here  this  morning  in  order  to  advance  the 
business  of  the  Convention — that  is,  the  recalling  of  the  sev- 
eral resolutions  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  send- 
ing them  to  a  standing  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights.  Of 
course  I  make  no  suggestion  as  to  which  course  should  be 
pursued.  It  is  immaterial  to  me.  I  only  wish  it  understood 
that  the  resolutions  are  now  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Upon  call  of  Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua  the  motion  of  Mr. 
Niles  of  Concord  is  stated  by  the  President. 

The  President — The  secretary  informs  the  chair  that  there 
are  three  resolutions  on  this  matter.  One  was  introduced  by 
the  gentleman  from  Hanover,  Mr.  Colby,  one  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  Mr.  Niles,  and  one  by  the  gentleman 
from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker;  that  the  first  two  are  in  the  Committee 
on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Department,  and  that  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  is  in  the 
Committee  of  the  Wliole.  The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 


FEIDAY,  DECEMBER  12,  1902.  513 

Niles,  moves  that  the  two  resolutions  sent  to  the  Committee 
on  Bill  of  Eights — his  own  and  that  of  the  gentleman  from 
Hanover,  Mr.  Colby — be  recalled  from  the  Committee  on  Bill 
of  Rights  and  referred  to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  be 
considered  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  with  the  resolution 
of  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker. 

Mr.  Hamblett — That  is  the  way  I  understand  it.  It  seems 
to  me  that  is  a  very  unusual  proceeding.  Two  resolutions 
have  been  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Eights  and 
Executive  Department,  and  that  committee  has  made  no  re- 
port, and  no  reason  is  given  why  these  should  be  taken  from 
the  committee.  I  believe  that  the  whole  matter  should  be 
considered  by  a  special  committee,  and  then  the  Convention 
have  the  information  and  result  of  the  deliberations  of  that 
committee.  It  would  seem  to  me  that  the  resolution  of  the 
gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  should  be  referred  to  a  spe- 
cial committee,  and  that  would  be  in  the  line  of  progress. 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord — I  agree  with  the  gentleman  from 
Nashua,  Mr.  Hamblett,  on  that  proposition.  That  is  what  I 
contended  for  the  other  day,  to  have  the  resolution  of  the 
gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  go  to  the  Committee  on  Bill 
of  Eights  where  the  other  two  resolutions  were,  but  there  was 
objection  to  that,  and  in  order  to  obviate  such  objection  I 
made  the  motion  I  have  to-day. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  presume  the  desire  on  the  part  of  all 
is  to  do  something.  Now  this  matter  has  been  considered  for 
perhaps  an  hour  or  more  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and 
the  only  anomalous  condition  in  the  whole  matter  is  that  one 
resolution  is  before  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  two  be- 
fore a  standing  committee.  We  are  getting  to  that  stage  in 
the  Convention  where  it  seems  to  me  it  would  be  just  as  well 
to  take  the  two  from  the  standing  committee  and  refer  them 
to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  as  to  reverse  that  position.  If 
the  resolutions  should  be  considered  by  the  standing  com- 
mittee they  would  perhaps  be  reported  at  a  late  day  and  leave 
33 


514    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

no  time  to  discuss  the  question  before  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole.  I  very  much  prefer,  and  think  it  is  as  regular,  that 
the  resolutions  before  the  standing  committee  should  be  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord — For  the  purpose  of  testing  the  ques- 
tion, I  will  withdraw  my  motion  and  I  will  move  that  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  be  referred 
to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Depart- 
ment. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Mies  is  stated  by  the  chair,  and  upon 
viva  voce  vote  is  carried. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter,  the  resolution  of- 
fered by  the  gentleman  from  Hanover,  Mr.  Colby,  in  relation 
to  article  eleven,  Bill  of  Rights,  was  withdrawn  from  the 
Committee  on  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution 
and  Other  Proposed  Amendments,  and  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Legislative  Department. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Truesdell  of  Pembroke,  it  was  voted  that 
when  the  Convention  adjourn  this  morning  it  adjourn  to 
meet  Monday  evening  at  7:30  o'clock. 

COMMITTEE  REPORTS. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  of 
Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester  to  amend  article  eighty-two  of  the 
Constitution  by  the  addition  of  a  provision  relative  to  trusts, 
reported  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  amendment  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  to  be  considered  with  amendments  of 
like  character/' 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  resolution  adopted. 

Mr  Lyford  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Legisla- 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  12,  1902.  515 

tive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Edgerly  of  Somersworth  to  article  eleven  of  the  Bill  of  Rights 
relative  to  an  educational  test  for  voting,  reported  the  same 
with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  amendment  be  adopted." 

The  report  was  accepted,  and  the  question  being  stated, 
•"Shall  the  resolution  be  adopted?" 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter — I  do  not  know  what  effect  this 
may  have  on  the  resolution  referred  to  the  committee  this 
morning — the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Hanover,  Mr. 
€olby,  which  relates  to  an  amendment  of  the  same  article  of 
ihe  Constitution.  I  move  that  the  resolution  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Somersworth,  Mr.  Edgerly,  be  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Legislative  Department,  that  the  two  resolu- 
tions may  be  considered  together. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  think  the  members  of  the  com- 
mittee were  aware  this  other  amendment  was  before  the  Con- 
vention, or  before  the  committee  in  some  form,  but  they  felt 
that  this  was  a  general  proposition  which  should  go  by  itself, 
and  I,  knowing  the  character  of  the  amendment  offered  by 
the  gentleman  from  Hanover,  Mr.  Colby,  think  we  should 
•consider  each  one  of  them  separately. 

The  President — The  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  of  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department. 

Upon  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  it  was  voted  that 
"his  name"  in  line  seven  of  the  resolution  be  stricken  out,  so 
that  part  of  the  amendment  will  read, — "But  no  person  shall 
have  the  right  to  vote  or  be  eligible  to  office  under  the  Con- 
stitution of  this  state  who  shall  not  be  able  to  read  the  Con- 
stitution in  the  English  language  and  to  write." 

Mr.  Lambert  of  Manchester — I  should  like  to  know  if  that 
means  write  in  the  English  or  in  a  foreign  language — Chinese, 
perhaps. 


516    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  resolution,  as  amend- 
ed, be  adopted  by  the  Convention  ?"  the  affirmative  prevailed,, 
and  the  proposed  amendment  to  the  Constitution  offered  by 
Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth  was  declared  adopted. 

Mr.  Howard  of  Portsmouth,  from  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  amendment 
of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  to  article  seven,  part  second,  of  the  Con- 
stitution in  relation  to  the  powers  of  the  general  court,  re- 
ported the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
in  this  respect/' 

The  report  was  accepted,  and  the  question  being  stated, 
"Shall  the  resolution  of  the  committee  be  adopted?" 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention:  Ifr 
in  the  minds  of  the  committee,  it  is  inexpedient  to  take  up 
this  subject  at  this  time,  I  have  no  words  of  protest.  If,  on 
the  other  hand,  it  is  the  purpose  of  the  committee  to  report 
against  the  subject  matter  as  being  inappropriate  or  unjust, 
I  have  something  to  say.  I  am  not  going  to  detain  you  more 
than  two  or  three  minutes  in  either  event. 

The  only  purpose  of  this  resolution  to  amend  is  very  well 
stated  in  the  closing  clause  to  which  you  have  listened.  "In 
all  cases  where  a  general  law  can  be  made  applicable,  no  local 
or  special  law  shall  be  enacted."  In  other  words  the  entire 
object  of  this  amendment  is  that  there  should  be  fair  play  to- 
all  parties  and  all  interests  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  in 
regard  to  the  subject  matter  mentioned.  It  would  do  away 
with  what  is  generally  known  as  the  "lobby,"  if  such  exists; 
it  would  prevent  the  granting  of  any  special  privileges  to  any 
corporation  existing  or  proposed  to  exist,  and  it  would  do- 
that  which  is  done  almost  everywhere  else  in  the  United 
States — make  it  necessary  to  pass  laws  which  would  be  appli- 
cable to  everybody,  and  which  would  not  give  any  special 
privileges  or  advantages  to  anybody. 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  12,  1902.  517 

It  seems  to  me,  notwithstanding  the  report  of  the  commit- 
tee, that  we  do  not  have  time  to  consider  the  general  welfare 
of  the  state,  even  in  a  Convention  limited  as  this  is  in  point 
of  time. 

I  know  of  no  reason  why  one  individual  or  set  of  individ- 
uals should  be  given  any  corporate  rights  or  right  to  build  a 
railroad  track,  or  any  other  thing,  which  any  other  body  of 
men  proposing  to  do  the  same  thing  may  not  have  equal 
opportunity  to  do.  I  think  if  this  proposed  amendment  had 
been  a  part  of  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire  for  the  last 
twenty-five  years  all  the  railroad  fights  which  have  disgraced 
the  state  would  have  been  avoided  and  that  we  should  have 
'been  quite  as  well  off  in  every  particular  as  we  are  now.  It  is 
my  experience,  gentlemen,  in  the  legislature,  that  a  consid- 
erable portion  of  the  time  is  occupied  in  granting  special  char- 
ters which  ought  not  to  be  granted  to  anybody;  but  that  a 
legislature  should  be  compelled  by  some  such  provision  as  I 
have  proposed  to  pass  a  general  corporation  law  which  would 
permit  each  and  every  person,  upon  equal  terms,  to  incorpo- 
rate as  he  or  they  might  desire. 

Mr.  Cross  of  Manchester — I  would  like  to  ask  the  gentle- 
man from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  one  question.  I  would  like  to 
know  if  it  were  not  possible  for  you  to  draft  an  article  in  a 
few  words,  saying  what  you  say  at  the  close  of  your  present 
resolution?  The  committee,  in  reading  it  over,  felt  appre- 
hensive that  if  it  were  presented  to  the  people  they  would  not 
take  the  time  to  read  it  and  would  vote  against  the  amend- 
ment and  the  gentleman  would  be  defeated  in  his  purpose.  If 
the  gentleman  from  Bow  will  draft  the  amendment  in  a  few 
words,  the  committee  may  consider  it  again. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  thank  the  gentleman  from  Manches- 
ter for  his  suggestion,  and  I  shall  try  to  comply  with  it  and 
attempt  to  submit  a  draft  which  the  Legislative  Committee 
may  be  willing  to  consider.  I  suppose  it  would  be  necessary, 
in  order  to  relieve  the  legislative  situation  that  the  report  of 
the  committee  be  recommitted  to  them,  and  I  therefore  move 


518    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

that  the  report  of  the  Legislative  Committee  be  recommitted 
to  that  committee  for  subsequent  action. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  being  stated,  prevailed. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Morris  of  Lisbon,  in  relation  to  extending  the 
jurisdiction  of  police  courts,  reported  the  same  in  the  follow- 
ing new  draft  and  recommended  its  adoption: 

"Resolved,  That  article  seventy-seven,  part  two,  of  the  Con- 
stitution be  amended  by  the  addition  of  the  following  words: 

"And  the  general  court  are  further  empowered  to  give  to- 
police  courts  jurisdiction  to  try  and  determine,  subject  to  the- 
respondent's  right  of  appeal  and  trial  by  jury,  criminal  causes 
wherein  the  punishment  is  less  than  imprisonment  in  the 
state  prison."  So  that  when  amended  said  section  shall  read: 

"The  general  court  are  empowered  to  give  to  justices  of  the- 
peace  jurisdiction  in  civil  causes,  when  the  damages  demanded 
shall  not  exceed  one  hundred  dollars  and  title  of  real  estate  is 
not  concerned,  but  with  right  of  appeal  to  either  party  to 
some  other  court.  And  the  general  court  are  further  empow- 
ered to  give  to  police  courts  jurisdiction  to  try  and  determine^ 
subject  to  the  respondent's  right  of  appeal  and  trial  by  jury, 
criminal  causes  wherein  the  punishment  is  less  than  imprison- 
ment in  the  state  prison." 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question,  "Shall  the  resolution,  as  amended  by  the  com- 
mittee, be  adopted?" 

Mr.  Cullen  of  Portsmouth — I  would  like  to  know  the  rea- 
son, from  some  member  of  the  committee,  why  it  is  necessary 
to  amend  and  give  the  police  justices  more  authority  than 
they  have  at  present. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — As  a  member  of  that  committee,  I 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  12,  1902.  519 

can  make  a  statement  in  regard  to  this,  but  I  hope  the  gentle- 
man from  Lisbon,  Mr.  Morris,  will  speak  upon  the  subject. 

Mr.  Daley  of  Berlin — This  question  may  result  in  more  or 
less  debate,  and  it  seems  to  me  that  it  would  be  impossible  to 
close  it  at  this  time  if  this  Convention  is  to  adjourn  in  time 
for  the  people  in  the  northern  part  of  the  state  to  take  the 
train  for  home.  If  that  is  so,  I  wish  that  the  resolution  may 
be  withdrawn  from  consideration  of  this  body  to-day,  or  at 
least  in  time  so  that  we  can  go  home. 

The  President — The  chair  would  suggest  to  the  gentleman 
from  Lisbon,  Mr.  Morris,  that  the  chair  would  not  have  taken 
up  this  report  at  this  time  if  he  had  supposed  there  was  to  be 
much  discussion.  The  chair  believes  that  reports  of  this  kind, 
involving  discussion,  should  be  taken  up  at  a  later  time  than 
at  present. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — If  the  President  will  pardon  me, 
the  impression  of  the  committee  is  that  after  the  gentleman 
from  Lisbon  has  made  his  statement  of  what  is  sought  to  be 
accomplished  by  this  amendment  there  will  be  no  opposition 
to  it.  If  there  does  develop  opposition  to  the  amendment  the 
question  could  be  passed  to  some  other  day. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lisbon — I  think  this  should  be  taken  up  in  a 
full  house,  when  a  full  discussion  of  it  may  be  had.  I  will 
state  briefly  the  purpose  of  the  proposed  amendment.  In  the 
first  place,  I  would  like  to  have  the  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion notice  that  this  amendment  does  not  in  itself  confer  in- 
creased jurisdiction  on  a  police  court.  It  simply  authorizes 
the  general  court  in  its  wisdom  to  do  so  if  it  sees  fit. 

Now,  the  question  is  upon  the  necessity  of  any  such  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution.  It  is  well  known  to  the  attorneys 
in  the  Convention  and  probably  to  most  of  the  members  of 
the  Convention,  that  back  in  1867  the  legislature  of  this  state 
assumed  to  authorize  justices  of  the  peace  to  take  jurisdiction 
in  criminal  matters  in  cases  wherein  the  punishment  did  not 


520    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

exceed  a  fine  of  $20  or  imprisonment  for  six  months.  That 
remained  the  law  of  the  state  until  1895.  Then  the  legis- 
lature attempted  to  increase  the  jurisdiction  to  cases  wherein 
the  punishment  did  not  exceed  a  fine  of  $200  or  imprisonment 
not  exceeding  one  year,  which  is  practically  the  limit  placed 
in  this  proposed  amendment. 

Then  it  occurred  to  some  members  of  the  bar  that  perhaps 
the  law  was  unconstitutional.  The  matter  was  taken  before 
the  supreme  court  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  in  the  case 
of  State  vs.  Gerry,  reported  in  the  68th  N.  H.,  p.  495,  and  a 
divided  court  held  that  the  law  was  unconstitutional.  Then 
another  case  was  taken  before  the  supreme  court,  State  vs. 
Jackson,  69th  N.  H.,  p.  511,  and  Judge  Chase,  in  quite  an 
elaborate  opinion,  speaking  for  a  majority  of  the  court,  de- 
cided that  the  jurisdiction  of  police  courts,  or  justices  of  the 
police  courts,  extended  only  to  cases  wherein  the  fine  did  not 
exceed  $10,  with  certain  exceptions. 

So  it  was  discovered  that  the  court  of  New  Hampshire  had 
been  acting  under  an  unconstitutional  law  from  about  1867  to 
1898,  when  this  case  of  State  vs.  Jackson  was  decided. 

Now,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  limit  of  $10  fine  for  the  juris- 
diction of  the  police  court  such  as  we  have  in  the  city  of  Man- 
chester, or  the  police  courts  of  towns  in  this  state,  is  a  very 
limited  jurisdiction.  I  understand  in  a  great  many  of  them  it 
has  been  the  practice  in  cases  that  they  wanted  to  take  care 
of,  when  they  did  not  have  jurisdiction,  for  the  respondents 
to  consent  in  writing  that  they  would  waive  their  constitu- 
tional rights  and  would  accept  the  jurisdiction  of  the  court. 
It  seems  to  me  this  is  wrong.  If  the  courts  want  to  take  juris- 
diction of  matters  which  they  are  not  empowered  to  take  juris- 
diction of  now,  they  should  be  authorized,  so  as  to  do  it  in  a 
legal  manner,  and  the  Constitution  should  be  so  amended  that 
a  subsequent  legislature  will  have  the  authority  to  increase  the 
jurisdiction  of  those  courts. 

Mr.  Daley  of  Berlin  moved  that  the  Convention  adjourn. 
The  motion  was  declared  lost  on  a  viva  voce  vote.  Mr.  Lyford 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  521 

of  Concord  called  for  a  division,  which  resulted  in  189  gen- 
tlemen voting  in  the  affirmative  and  22  gentlemen  voting  in 
the  negative,  and  the  Convention  was  declared  adjourned  un- 
til Monday  evening,  December  15,  at  7:30  o'clock. 


MONDAY  EVENING,  DECEMBER  15,  1902. 
The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

No  quorum  heing  present,  on  motion  of  Mr.  Madden  of 
Keene,  the  Convention  adjourned. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902. 
The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 
Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  Mr.  Buckshorn  of  Concord. 

The  journals  of  Friday  and  Monday  evening  were  read  and 
approved. 

The  resolution  of  Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth,  which 
passed  the  Convention  on  Friday,  December  13,  in  amend- 
ment of  article  eleven,  Bill  of  Rights,  relative  to  an  educa- 
tional test  for  voters,  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time 
and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments 
Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Bartlett  of  Sunapee  offered  the  following  resolution: 
"Resolved,  That  the  secretary  be  instructed  to  make  up  the 


522    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

pay-roll  of  the  Convention  to  include  the  number  of  days  the 
Convention  has  actually  been  in  session,  which  shall  be  in  full 
compensation  for  the  attendance  at  the  present  convention." 

Mr.  Bartlett  of  Sunapee — If  this  Convention  shall  adjourn 
on  Friday  next,  as  I  hope  it  will,  it  will  have  been  in  actual 
session  twelve  days.  This  number  of  days  will  absorb  the  ap- 
propriation of  $25,000.  Any  other  pay-roll  larger  than  this 
cannot  be  paid  by  the  state  treasurer,  and  the  whole  business 
will  have  to  go  over  to  the  next  legislature.  It  seems  to  me 
$25,000  is  an  adequate  appropriation  for  the  work  this  Con- 
vention will  do.  I  hope  the  resolution  will  pass.  I  am  not 
particular  whether  this  resolution  be  laid  upon  the  table,  re- 
ferred to  a  committee,  or  immediate  action  taken. 

The  resolution  was  declared  lost  on  a  viva  voce  vote.  On 
motion  of  Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster,  the  resolution  was  laid  upon 
the  table. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton  asked  leave  of  absence  for  the  re- 
minder of  the  session  for  Mr.  Drew  of  Lancaster. 

Leave  was  granted. 

Leave  of  absence  was  also  granted  Mr.  Warner  of  Antrim 
on  account  of  illness. 

COMMITTEE  KEPORTS. 

Mr.  Norris  of  Portsmouth,  from  the  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  Other  Proposed 
Amendments,  to  whom  was  referred  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Worcester  of  Milford  to  article  ninety-six,  part  second,  of;  the 
Constitution,  relative  to  the  money  standard  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, reported  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion in  this  respect." 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  question  being  stated, 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  523 

"Shall  the  resolution  of  the  committee  that  it  is  inexpedient 
to  amend  the  Constitution  in  this  respect?"  be  adopted,  the 
affirmative  prevailed  and  the  resolution  of  the  committee  was 
adopted. 

Mr.  Norris  of  Portsmouth,  from  the  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  Other  Proposed 
Amendments,,  to  whom  was  referred  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Farrington  of  Manchester  to  article  ninety-six,  part  second,  of 
the  Constitution,  relative  to  the  money  standard  of  the  Con- 
stitution, reported  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
in  this  respect." 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  resolution  adopted. 

Mr.  Paine  of  Berlin,  from  the  Committee  on  Future  Mode 
of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  Other  Proposed  Amend- 
ments, to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Gil- 
more  of  Manchester  to-  amend  part  second  of  the  Constitution, 
article  forty-one,  by  striking  out  the  words,  "And  whose 
title  shall  be  His  Excellency,"  reported  the  same  with  the 
following  resolution: 

''Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to>  make  the  amendment 
suggested." 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  resolution  adopted. 

Mr.  Woodbury  of  Woodstock,  from  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution 
introduced  by  Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester  relating  to  the  elec- 
tion of  secretary,  treasurer,  and  commissary-general,  reported 
the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  recommend  such  an 
amendment." 

The  report  was  accepted,  and  the  question  being  stated, 


524     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

"Shall  the  resolution  reported  by  the  committee  be  adopted/' 
the  affirmative  prevailed  on  a  viva  voce  vote.  Mr.  Hubbard  of 
Amherst  called  for  a  division.  The  division  showed  139  gen- 
tlemen voting  in  the  affirmative  and  63  gentlemen  voting  in 
the  negative. 

The  President  stated  that  the  division  did  not  show  a 
quorum,  but  a  quorum  being  manifestly  present  he  called  for 
another  division. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester — It  is  evident  that,  as  the  Presi- 
dent has  said,  there  is  a  quorum  in  the  house,  and  as  this  is 
an  important  matter  I  want  a  record  to  go  to  the  people.  I 
believe  all  of  these  officers  should  be  elected  by  the  people  bi- 
ennially. I  intend  that  a  record  shall  be  made,  and  if  I  can 
get  nine  men  to  support  me  I  will  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays, 
and  let  the  people  know  who  is  running  this  Convention  and 
what  for. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hubbard  of  Amherst,  the  report  of  the 
committee  and  the  proposed  amendment  of  the  gentleman 
from  Manchester,  Mr.  Gilmore,  was  laid  upon  the  table  and 
made  a  special  order  for  Wednesday,  December  17,  at  2:30 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Leg- 
islative Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  of- 
fered by  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  with  reference  to  amendment  of 
articles  thirty-two,  thirty-three,  forty-one,  and  sixty,  of  part 
second  of  the  Constitution,  providing  for  the  substitution  of 
the  word  " plurality,"  for  "majority,"  in  said  articles,  reported 
the  same  in  the  following  amended  form,  and  recommended 
its  adoption: 

Amend  part  second,  title  "Senate,"  articles  thirty-two  and 
thirty-three,  article  forty-one,  title  Executive  Power — Gov- 
ernor, and  article  sixty,  title  Council,  by  striking  out  the  word 
"majority"  wherever  it  occurs  in  said  articles,  and  substitut- 
ing therefor  the  word  "plurality." 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  525 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  question  being  stated, 
"Shall  the  recommendation  of  the  committee  be  adopted,"  the 
affirmative  prevailed  on  a  viva  voce  vote. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester  called  for  a  division,  and,  pending 
it,  moved  to  lay  the  resolution,  with  the  recommendation  of 
the  committee,  upon  the  table.  On  the  motion  to  lay  on  the 
table,  the  negative  prevailed  on  a  viva  voce  vote. 

The  same  gentleman  withdrew  his  call  for  a  division. 

Mr.  Briggs  of  Manchester  called  for  the  yeas  and  nays  upon 
the  question.  Pending  the  calling  of  the  roll,  Mr.  Briggs 
moved  that  the  resolution  be  laid  upon  the  table.  The  nega- 
tive prevailed  on  a  viva  voce  vote. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester — Debate,  I  suppose,  is  not  in  order 
in  this  matter.  I  have  one  suggestion  to  make,  and  by  unani- 
mous consent  I  would  like  to  proceed  for  a  moment. 

The  President — There  being  no  objection  unanimous  con- 
sent is  granted. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester — This  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant matters  that  has  been  brought  before  this  Convention. 
It  changes  the  system  of  election  of  the  governor,  senators, 
and  council  from  what  has  been  the  rule  in  this  state  since 
the  adoption  of  the  state  Constitution,  in  this,  that  a  plurality 
of  votes  shall  under  this  amendment  elect  all  those  officers, 
whereas,  heretofore,  we  have  always  required  a  majority.  It 
seems  to  me  it  is  an  important  matter  and  should  be  consid- 
ered in  a  house  where  more  members  are  present  than  now. 
It  was  for  this  reason  I  made  my  motion  to  lay  upon  the  table, 
which  was  voted  down.  Of  course  those  of  us  who  are  op- 
posed to  such  an  amendment  as  this  will  submit  with  all  good 
grace  to  the  action  of  the  Convention,  but  we  simply  ask  that 
the  motion  may  be  held  over  to  such  time  as  it  may  be  more 
carefully  and  generally  considered.  It  has  been  brought  in 


526     JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

here  without  any  discussion.  Nobody  has  stated  any  reason 
why  we  should  make  this  change  except  that  the  committee 
has  recommended  it.  It  does  seem  to  me  that  a  matter  so  im- 
portant as  this  ought  to  receive  some  discussion,,  and  ought  to 
be  voted  upon  by  a  large  majority  of  the  Convention,  instead 
of  in  a  Convention  where  a  division  shows  that  a  quorum  is 
not  present. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  move  the  Convention  resolve 
itself  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  the  trust 
resolutions. 

The  President — The  chair  will  be  obliged  to  rule  that  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord  is  not  in  order. 

Mr.  Chandler — It  is  my  impression  that  a  motion  to  pass 
over  any  subject  under  consideration  to  take  up  another  one 
is  always  in  order.  I  see  no  reason,  however,  why  the  Con- 
vention should  be  governed  by  a  mere  parliamentary  rule. 

Mr.  Briggs  of  Manchester — By  unanimous  consent  I  with- 
draw my  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays  and  move  that  the  further 
consideration  of  this  resolution  be  postponed  until  to-morrow 
at  11:30  o'clock  in  the  forenoon. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  rise  to  make  a  parliamentary  inquiry. 
What  will  be  the  status  of  this  matter  at  that  hour?  Will  it 
then  be  open  for  debate,  or  will  it  be  on  the  call  for  yeas  and 
nays? 

The  President — The  motion  for  yeas  and  nays  has  been 
withdrawn  and  the  chair  will  rule  that  the  matter  would  stand 
as  it  did  this  morning,  and  be  open  for  debate. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — This  motion  being  tabled,  I  desire 
to  make  this  statement.  This  report  comes  in  here  from  the 
committee  of  which  I  am  a  member,  and  it  comes  as  a  matter 
of  surprise  to  me.  I  know  the  matter  has  been  under  consid- 
eration by  the  committee,  and  undoubtedly  a  vote  has  been 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  527 

taken  at  some  time  when  I  was  absent  from  the  committee, 
although  I  have  attended  all  its  sessions.  I  think  the  matter 
should  have  the  consideration  of  this  Convention  before  it  is 
voted  on. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Since  the  adoption  of  the  state  gov- 
ernment there  have  been  twelve  instances  where  the  governor 
has  been  elected  other  than  by  the  people.  The  first  three  by 
the  senate  under  the  old  form  of  the  Constitution,,  and  since 
then  in  nine  instances  by  the  legislature.  In  eight  of  those 
instances  the  man  having  a  plurality  of  votes  has  been  elected, 
while  in  four  of  those  instances  a  man  in  the  minority  has 
been  elected;  once  in  1785,  where  a  man  having  474  was 
elected  against  a  man  having  2,751;  in  1790,  where  a  man  hav- 
ing 1,626  was  elected  against  one  having  2,369;  in  1812,  where 
a  man  having  15,492  was  elected  against  a  man  having  16,613, 
and  in  1863,  where  a  man  having  29,035  was  elected  against 
another  having  32,833.  I  think  the  Convention  will  agree 
with  me  that  in  each  and  every  instance  an  outrage  was  com- 
mitted on  the  people  of  New  Hampshire. 

Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia — Owing  to  misfortune  I  have  been 
unable  to  give  much  attention  to  the  work  of  the  committee, 
and  was  not  present  when  this  matter  was  taken  up  before  the 
committee.  I  think  it  is  an  important  matter,  and  ought  to  be 
considered  when  the  house  has  a  larger  attendance.  It  seems 
that  when  the  members  consider  this  question  there  ought  not 
to  be  any  doubt  in  any  member's  mind  that  every  one  ought 
to  give  it  more  consideration  than  has  apparently  been  given 
it  at  this  time.  Certainly  while  I  have  decided  views  upon  the 
question,  I  would  like  to  think  a  little  more  upon  this  report 
than  I  have  had  time  to  do  yet.  Now,  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing one  more  trial,  I  move  the  Convention  adjourn  and  pend- 
ing that  motion  I  move  the  matter  be  laid  upon  the  table  and 
made  a  special  order  for  to-morrow  at  eleven  o'clock. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — A  motion  to  adjourn,  and  then 
a  motion  to  do  something  else  before  we  adjourn — I  never 


528     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

heard  anything  of  that  kind  in  parliamentary  procedure  be- 
fore. I  did  not  suppose  that  the  same  member  could  move  to 
adjourn  and  then  move  that  the  Convention  do  something 
else  before  adjourning. 

I  shall  vote  for  a  plurality  rule  when  it  is  voted  upon.  I 
hope,,  however,  that  the  friends  of  the  plurality  rule  will  allow 
the  friends  of  the  majority  to  have  this  delay  until  to-morrow. 
I  ask  this  especially  because  the  subject  of  trusts  ought  to 
come  up  this  morning,  as  there  are  one  or  two  gentlemen  who 
wish  to  speak  upon  it  and  are  prepared  to  speak  at  this  time. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  intended  to  say  before  I  sat  down  that 
I-  object  to  a  hasty  consideration  of  this  matter,  and  would 
agree  to  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr. 
Briggs. 

Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia — In  order  that  there  may  be  no  mis- 
take, I  hope  the  Convention  will  bear  in  mind  that  the  mo- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Briggs,  fixed  the 
time  for  the  consideration  of  this  matter  at  11:30  o'clock  to- 
morrow, while  my  motion  was  for  11  o'clock.  Perhaps  the 
gentleman  from  Manchester  will  accept  11  o'clock  as  an 
amendment. 

The  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Briggs,  accepted  the 
amendnient,  and  further  consideration  of  the  question  was 
postponed  until  to-morrow,  December  17,  at  11  o'clock  in  the 
forenoon. 

Mr.  Peavey  of  Greenfield,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Leg- 
islative Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin  to  article  twenty-eight,  part  first,  of 
the  Bill  of  Rights,  by  adding  a  section  relative  to  the  author- 
ity of  cities  and  towns  exempting  from  taxation  certain  prop- 
erty, reported  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
in  this  respect." 


The  report  was  accepted. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  529 

Question,  "Shall  the  resolution  of  the  committee  be 
adopted?" 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — As  I  introduced  this  amendment, 
I  think  I  owe  it  to  myself  to  say  a  single  word  before  the  Con- 
vention votes  upon  the  resolution  of  the  committee.  The 
resolution,  I  take  it,  is  reported  adversely  by  the  committee 
on  acount  of  their  disagreeing  with  the  principle  involved  in 
the  proposed  amendment,  and  not  on  account  of  the  form  of 
the  resolution  as  it  stands.  Now  if  the  principle  is  wrong, 
gentlemen,  then  either  it  is  so  because  the  Constitution  al- 
ready provides  for  equal  taxation  or  because  equal  taxation  is 
wrong. 

I  take  it  that  we  all  understand  that  the  Constitution  as  it  is 
provides  for  equality  of  taxation.  I  take  it,  gentlemen,  if  we 
have  a  Constitution  which  enables  a  to\pi  rightfully  to  tax 
your  neighbor  at  the  rate  of  1  per  cent,  and  tax  you  at  the  rate 
of  2  per  cent.,  there  is  occasion  for  amending  the  Constitution 
in  this  respect.  If  we  have  a  Constitution  that  is  of  such  a 
character,  then  towns  can  say  to  any  people  who  come  in  from 
outside  the  town  that  they  will  tax  them  at  a  rate  per  cent, 
only  one  half  of  what  the  people  in  the  town  are  taxed,  then 
this  Constitution  ought  to  be  amended.  Now  we  all  know 
that  for  forty  years,  since  1860,  we  have  had  a  statute  which 
gives  towns  authority  to  exempt  from  taxation  certain  manu- 
facturing corporations  for  a  term  of  ten  years,  and  the  effect 
of  that  statute  is  that  the  other  people  of  the  town  have  to 
pay  the  portion  of  taxes  which  I  believe  ought  to  be  paid  by 
these  manufacturing  corporations. 

Now  it  may  be  said  that  the  Constitution  is  clearly  against 
this.  This  matter,  however,  is  in  such  a  condition  that  the 
people  of  the  state  have  been  unable  to  ascertain  whether  this 
statute  permitting  exemption  from  taxation  is  constitutional 
or  not.  Twice  this  question  has  been  referred  to  the  supreme 
court.  Once  about  1879  by  the  house  of  representatives. 
They  asked  the  opinion  of  the  supreme  court  as  to  whether 
the  law  was  constitutional,  and  what,  gentlemen,  was  the 
34 


530     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

reply?  It  was  briefly  this, — "Whether  a  true  construction  of 
the  Constitution  authorizes  the  making  of  any  exemption  of 
taxation  is  a  question  that  would  require  so  much  time  that  a 
well  considered  answer  could  not  be  given  in  season  to  furnish 
any  aid  to  your  body/'  That  was  in  1879.  Again,  at  the  last 
session  of  the  legislature,  the  senate  having  quite  a  number  of 
bills  for  the  exemption  of  property  from  taxation,  asked  the 
supreme  court  for  their  opinion  as  to  whether  this  law  ex- 
empting manufacturing  property  from  taxation,  or  any  law 
exempting  property  from  taxation,  was  constitutional.  I 
thought  I  had  the  answer  of  the  supreme  court  with  me,  but 
it  is  so  recent  that  every  lawyer  in  the  state  will  recollect  it. 
The  court  adopted  almost  precisely  the  language  of  the  court 
in  1879,  and  said  that  whether  the  true  construction  of  the 
Constitution  would  enable  towns  to  exempt  property  from  tax- 
ation was  a  question  that  would  require  so  much  time  to  give 
a  well  considered  answer  that  there  was  not  time  during  the 
session  of  the  legislature. 

So,  gentlemen,  the  question  involved  in  this  amendment  is 
a  question  of  so  much  difficulty  and  is  so  much  in  doubt  that 
the  supreme  court  of  this  state,  although  having  been  asked 
twice — once  by  the  house  of  representatives,  and  once  by  the 
senate — to  give  their  opinion  on  the  constitutionality  of  the 
statute,  has  both  times  said  that  there  was  insufficient  time 
during  the  session  of  the  legislature  to  give  a  well  considered 
opinion  on  that  question.  So,  gentlemen,  it  seems  to  me, 
there  being  so  much  doubt  about  the  Constitution  as  that,  it 
is  a  question  that  ought  to  be  made  clear.  I  think  that  some 
action  should  be  taken  on  this  question  because  the  condition 
of  things  that  existed  when  this  law  was  passed  in  1860  has 
entirely  changed  from  what  it  was  at  that  time,  and  although 
there  might  have  been  occasion  at  times  for  a  statute  of  that 
sort  and  it  might  have  been  beneficial  for  the  people  of  the 
state,  that  condition  of  things  no  longer  exists.  This  statute 
when  it  was  passed  was  an  act  to  encourage  manufacturing. 
As  you  all  know,  at  that  time  manufacturers  in  this  state  had 
to  compete  not  only  with  business  in  this  country,  but  all  over 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  531 

the  globe.  Since  that  time  all  men  engaged  in  manufactur- 
ing, or  practically  all  of  them,  have  received  the  benefit  of  the 
protective  tariff,  which  prevents  competition  from  any  men  in 
the  same  business  outside  of  the  United  States.  So  manu- 
facturers have  ample  protection  from  outside  competition 
which  they  did  not  have  in  1860  when  the  statute  was  passed. 

Again,  another  condition  has  arisen  which  is  this,  that  men 
have  found  that  the  only  method,  or  the  principal  method,  in 
which  business  can  be  done  is  by  combination  and  in  forming 
what  you  call  "trusts/'  and  the  condition  is  fast  approaching 
when  nearly  all  kinds  of  manufacturing  will  be  brought  into 
the  hands  of  large  corporations  which  are  able  to  compete  not 
only  with  their  competitors  in  foreign  countries,  but 
against  any  one  doing  business  in  this  country — individuals 
and  small  corporations — and  when  you  continue  this  statute 
for  exempting  property  from  taxation  you  have  to  apply  that 
principle  of  exemption  of  property  to  these  large  corporations 
which  you  call^trusts,  but  which  I  do  not  believe  is  the  proper 
term. 

Again,  not  only  has  the  condition  of  things  entirely 
changed  since  this  statute  was  passed,  but  the  purposes  for 
which  the  statute  was  passed,  the  causes  for  which  it  was  up- 
held, have  been  entirely  lost  sight  of,  and  it  has  been  used  for 
quite  a  different  purpose.  The  theory,  as  I  understand  it, 
under  which  this  statute  was  originally  passed  was  that  ex- 
emption should  be  granted  to  property  that  might  be  brought 
into  being  on  account  of  tax  exemption.  <  Now,  so  far  as  my 
observation  has  extended,  in  nine  cases  out  of  every  ten  where 
exemption  of  this  sort  has  been  granted,  the  matter  of  exemp- 
tion from  taxation  has  not  had  anything  to  do  with  the  estab- 
lishing of  these  new  industries.  The  question  of  trade,  the 
question  of  help,  and  of  freight  rates,  etc.,  have  determined 
the  question  of  whether  or  not  manufacturing  industries  would 
locate  in  a  certain  locality,  and  the  practical  result  has  been 
that  these  industries  have  generally  decided  where  they  would 
locate  before  they  brought  up  the  question  of  exemption  from 
taxation.  In  my  judgment,  the  principle  involved  in  the 


532    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

original  statute  has  been  wholly  lost  sight  of,  and  the  result 
has  been  that  now  almost  every  manufacturing  industry  that 
is  even  making  an  addition  to  their  plant  want  an  exemption 
from  taxation,  and  their  exemption  is  decided  not  on  the  ques- 
tion of  whether  or  not  it  is  necessary,  but  on  the  ground  that 
because  it  has  been  granted  to  others  it  should  be  granted  to 
them. 

Now  I  think  that  there  is  great  danger  in  allowing  this 
principle  of  exemption  from  taxation  to  stand  longer  upon  the 
statute  book.  At  the  last  session  of  the  legislature  what  prop- 
ositions came  before  the  senate,  which  had  nearly  all  of  them 
passed  the  house  and  came  very  nearly  being  adopted?  There 
was  one  proposition  from  gentlemen  in  Massachusetts  and 
other  states,  who  had  bought  up  a  large  tract  of  wild  land  and 
intended  to  occupy  it  for  a  park,  and  they  came  to  the  legis- 
lature and  asked  to  be  exempted  from  taxation  on  that  land, 
and  they  had  strong  support  for  it.  Another  party  came  to 
the  legislature  and  asked  to  have  the  legislature  authorize  a 
certain  city  to  exempt  from  taxation  a  sanatorium.  When  we 
inquired  into  the  condition  of  things  it  appeared  that  this 
sanatorium  had  already  been  built  and  was  already  in  opera- 
tion and  was  a  purely  business  enterprise — not  a  charitable 
one.  Another  proposition  was  submitted  to  authorize  a  cer- 
tain town  to  exempt  from  taxation  certain  summer  homes — in 
a  general  way,  all  summer  homes,  I  think,  which  were  built  in 
that  town.  Another  town  came  there  with  a  proposition  to 
authorize  them  to  exempt  from  taxation  a  hotel  which  had 
burned  down.  And  several  other  propositions  came  before  the 
legislature  at  the  last  session. 

ISTow  I  say  that  this  statute  remaining  longer  upon  the  stat- 
ute book  will  tend  .to  bring  all  sorts  of  bills  to  the  legislature 
by  people  who  are  trying  to  get  exemption  from  taxation.  It 
seems  to  me  that  this  matter  is  all  wrong,  that  it  is  a  gross 
violation  of  the  fundamental  principle  of  the  Bill  of  Rights 
that  every  man  is  entitled  to  equal  protection  before  the  law, 
and  therefore  he  is  bound  to  contribute  his  share  for  the  sup- 
port of  the  government. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  533 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  you  agree  with  me  in  this  matter  that 
this  amendment  should  be  recommended,  then  I  ask  you  to 
vote  against  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  which  is  reported 
here  by  the  committee  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  take  any  action 
upon  this  question. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — I  had  not  expected  to  ad- 
dress this  Convention  again  during  its  sittings,  but  this  is  a 
question  which  is  very  important  to  the  state  of  New  Hamp- 
shire. It  is  not  a  question  that  should  come  before  this  Con- 
vention, but  should  be  settled  upon  its  merits  in  each  indi- 
vidual case  by  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire. 

I  disagree  with  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  in  his  state- 
ment that  this  is  an  exemption  of  trusts  from  taxation.  It  is 
a  policy  which  has  done  more  to  build  up  this  little  state  of 
New  Hampshire,  situated  way  back  in  the  northeast  part  of 
our  country,  than  any  other  one  law  upon  our  statute  books. 
It  has  given  to  this  state  the  largest  industry  in  the  state — one 
in  which  I  am  very  much  interested.  It  has  given  to  this  state 
the  shoe  industry — an  industry  in  which  there  never  will  be, 
or  can  be,  a  trust.  It  has  given  to  this  state  taxable  property 
of  immense  value,  because  under  the  legislation  of  the  state 
you  can  exempt  no  corporation  for  a  term  longer  than  ten 
years. 

Now,  gentlemen,  I  will  bring  up  an  illustration.  In  1870 
my  father  went  to  the  town  of  Derry  where  there  was  an 
empty  shoe  factory,  and  was  exempted  from  taxation.  That 
fact  induced  him  to  establish  himself  in  business  there.  Peo- 
ple from  other  states  came  there,  and  a  town  was  built  up 
which  to-day  has  a  population  of  over  5,000  people.  They 
have  increased  the  taxable  property  until  the  town  of  Derry 
stands  as  one  of  the  three  or  four  large  towns  of  the  state. 
They  have  built  up  an  industry  there  which  is  permanent,  and 
which  pays  to  labor  over  half  a  million  dollars  a  year.  They 
have  added  to  the  taxable  property  of  that  town  on  which  the 
exemption  has  run  out  $300,000.  They  have  added  over 
$200,000  in  property  in  buildings  this  year. 


534    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

I  do  not  believe  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  wants  to  put 
any  handicap  on  the  building  up  of  our  industries.  I  do  not 
think  we  can  afford  to  do  that.  We  have  to  come  in  competi- 
tion with  the  great  West  where  shoe  factories  are  springing 
up,  where  capital  is  being  invested,  where  they  have  a  market 
at  their  doors,  and  it  is  necessary  in  order  to  meet  these  people 
on  even  terms  that  some  inducements  or  advantages  be  given 
us  here.  They  exempt  their  shoe  factories,  they  have  labor 
which  they  can  procure  at  20  per  cent,  less  than  we  can  here 
in  New  Hampshire,  and  it  seems  to  me  we  should  be  placed 
upon  even  footing. 

It  is  not  necessary  for  this  Convention  to  endorse  such  a 
measure  as  this  as  a  part  of  the  organic  law  of  the  etate.  It 
seems  to  me  fair  to  leave  it  as  it  should  be  left,  to  the  common 
sense  of  our  future  legislatures. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover — Much  has  been  said  at  different 
times  in  our  legislatures  relative  to  the  question  of  exempting 
property  from  taxation,  and  to-day,  for  the  first  time,  I  have 
heard  a  gentleman  give  reasons  in  favor  of  exempting  the  shoe 
manufacturers. 

As  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  has  said,  instead  of  this 
law  being  used  to  induce  new  industries  and  new  enterprises 
to  start  in  a  town,  it  has  been  applied  more  especially  to  the 
enlargement  of  business.  If  there  is  anything  vicious  in  prin- 
ciple and  vicious  in  practice,  it  is  exempting  property  from 
taxation  under  the  statutes  of  this  state  as  it  is  practised  to- 
day. 

The  shoe  manufacturers,  if  I  mistake  not — and  I  am  not" 
speaking  of  any  particular  firm  or  any  particular  individual — 
the  shoe  manufacturers  for  the  most  part  have  been  wander- 
ing Jews,  going  from  place  to  place  wherever  they  could  get 
exemptions  from  taxes  or  other  inducements.  For  instance, 
the  town  of  Northwood.  If  I  am  not  mistaken,  that  town  ex- 
empted a  shoe  business  from  taxation  for  the  period  of  ten 
years.  I  speak  of  the  shoe  industries,  not  because  the  business 
is  not  all  right,  but  as  I  understand  it  they  can  easily  pull  up 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  535 

and  go  from  town  to  town.  If  I  mistake  not,  the  town  of 
Northwood  was  practically  ruined  by  exempting  such,  prop- 
erty from  taxation.  Property  went  in  there,  men  built  homes 
relying  upon  the  faith  that  these  companies  would  stay  there. 
I  was  a  member  of  the  legislature  when  a  manufacturing  com- 
pany came  before  the  legislature  in  1885,  asking  for  a  second 
exemption  for  ten  years.  I  remember  that  the  honorable  gen- 
tleman from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  left  the  speaker's  chair 
and  came  down  upon  the  floor  of  the  house  and  denounced  it, 
and  did  what  he  could  to  prevent  a  further  extension  of  that 
exemption.  I  remember  that  General  Marston  denounced  the 
principle  and  did  what  he  could  against  it,  and  more  particu- 
larly against  what  has  been  done  by  certain  branches  of  indus- 
tries which  could  easily  move  from  place  to  place. 

Now,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen,  I  do  not  believe  a  legit- 
imate industry  comes  into  a  town,  or  refuses  to  come  into  a 
town,  because  they  can  or  cannot  get  exemption. 

I  do  not  want  to  select  instances,  but  I  have  in  mind  an 
industry  which  has  not  long  been  started  and  it  has  paid  in  a 
few  years  a  dividend  of  from  60  to  100  per  cent.  Only  a  few 
years  ago  they  made  an  extension,  and  asked  and  received 
further  exemption.  We  hear  talk  against  trusts,  against  favor- 
itism to  large  industries  and  corporations,  but  yet  if  there  is 
one  instance  where  favoritism  is  permitted,  it  is  here.  An  in- 
dustry goes  into  a  little  town,  perhaps,  and  asks  for  exemption, 
and  as  very  often  happens,  a  meeting  is  held — not  a  general 
town-meeting,  but  a  special  meeting,  where  the  exemption  is 
granted  with  a  very  few  of  the  voters  of  the  town  present.  I 
have  yet  to  learn  of  a  single  instance  coming  under  my  ob- 
servation where  a,  single  industry  has  been  built  where  it 
would  not  have  been  built  even  if  they  had  not  been  exempted 
from  taxation.  I  presume  possibly  near  the  line  of  Massachu- 
setts, if  the  laws  of  Massachusetts  (about 'which  I  am  not  in- 
formed) do  not  permit  these  exemptions, — I  presume  likely 
that  our  law  may  have  the  effect  of  bringing  in  some  indus- 
tries along  the  state  line.  But  it  seems  to  me  that  the  princi- 
ple of  the  law  is  altogether  wrong.  It  is  exempting  one  class 


536    JOUHNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

of  people  at  the  expense"  of  another  class.  It  is  exempting  a 
class  of  people  as  well  able,  and  better  able,  to  pay  its  fail- 
share  of  the  burden  of  taxation  at  the  expense  of  another  class 
which  is  not  as  well  able. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Franklin — I  am  thoroughly  opposed  to  ex- 
empting property  from  taxation  on  the  principle  of  equal  tax- 
ation by  all  the  people  and  an  equal  bearing  of  the  burdens  of 
government  by  all  the  people  in  the  state. .  It  costs  so  much  to 
run  the  state  government,  to  run  the  counties  and  towns,  and 
if  the  property  in  any  town,  or  any  portion  of  it,  is  exempt 
from  taxation  the  other  property  which  is  taxed  has  to  pay  the 
taxes  for  the  exempted  property.  Now  I  believe  in  equal  taxa- 
tion. Let  the  capitalist  who  is  running  a  hundred  thousand, 
or  a  two  or  three  hundred  thousand,  dollar  plant,  pay  his  pro- 
portion of  the  taxes  with  the  laboring  man  that  works  for  him 
at  two  dollars  a  day.  Don't  exempt  him  for  ten  years  on  a 
two  hundred  thousand  dollar  plant  and  then  raise  the  money 
necessary  to  carry  on  the  government  out  of  his  workmen,  but 
tax  them  all  equally.  Let  them  all  bear  the  burdens  of  the 
town  and  general  government.  Let  us  all  bear  our  share  of 
the  burdens,  and  let  no  man  be  exempt. 

Now  the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken  have  given  some  in- 
stances of  how  this  exemption  works.  We  have  an  instance 
right  in  Franklin,  and  I  am  going  to  bring  it  to  the  attention 
of  this  Convention.  We  have  an  industry  in  Franklin,  capi- 
talized at  $75,000.  For  two  years  it  has  paid  100  per  cent, 
dividends,  and  last  year  it  paid  60  per  cent,  dividend.  This 
year  that  same  corporation,  earning  its  60  or  100  per  cent, 
dividend,  wanted  to  enlarge  its  plant.  It  wanted  to  build  two 
wings  on  to  its  plant.  It  came  before  the  city  council  of  my 
city,  composed  of  nine  members,  and  five  of  them  voted  to 
exempt  that  plant  from  taxation,  or  the  additions  that  they 
might  build  on  to  them,  for  six  years.  That  exemption  was 
given  them,  and  the  plant  has  been  enlarged,  and  the  people 
of  the  town  have  got  to  pay  the  taxes  that  the  rich  corporation 
ought  to  pay.  I  am  thoroughly  in  favor  of  having  equal  taxa- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  537 

tion,  and  I  hope  the  resolution  introduced  by  my  colleague 
from  Franklin  (who  is  thoroughly  competent  and  knows  what 
he  is  talking  about  in  this  matter)  will  prevail  and  that  the 
recommendation  of  the  committee  will  not  prevail. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — I  had  not  expected  to  say 
anything  upon  this  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin.  I  had  supposed  that  a  resolution  of  this  kind  would 
meet  with  the  approval  of  every  member  of  this  Convention, 
and  I  was  surprised  when  the  report  of  the  committee  came  in 
adverse  to  it. 

We  are  all  familiar  with  what  happens  when  towns  and 
cities  attempt  to  bring  business  into  their  locality  by  means 
of  exemption  of  property  from  taxation.  We  have  all  wit- 
nessed its  injurious  effects.  We  have  seen  factories  built  by 
public  subscription,  and  exempted  from  taxation  for  ten  years, 
to  induce  industries  to  come  into  our  midst,  and  when  ten 
years  have  expired,  and  they  could  get  no  further  exemption 
from  taxation,  they  have  almost  invariably  gone  to  some  other 
locality,  where  they  could  obtain  exemption  for  ten  years 
more.  There  are  numerous  places  in  my  section  of  the  state 
that  are  to-day  suffering  from  the  effects  of  exemption  of  prop- 
erty from  taxation.  When  an  industry  is  induced  to  come 
into  a  town  on  account  of  a  vote  to  exempt  their  property 
from  taxation,  it  usually  brings  in  quite  a  large  number  of 
people,  many  of  whom  are  anxious  to  own  homes.  They  have 
a  few  hundred  dollars  in  the  savings  bank,  which  they  draw 
out  and  pay  towards  such  homes,  and  give  a  mortgage  upon 
them  for  the  balance  of  the  purchase  money.  When  these  in- 
dustries, at  the  end  of  their  ten  years  of  exemption  from  taxa- 
tion, pull  up  and  leave  the  town,  it  leaves  these  poor  laborers, 
who  are  owing  for  their  little  homes,  without  employment, 
and  utterly  unable  to  raise  the  amount  due  on  these  mort- 
gages; consequently/ all  the  hard  earnings,  saved  by  them  to 
pay  for  a  home,  are  lost. 

I  am  opposed  to  the  exemption  of  any  kind  of  property 
from  taxation.  It  is  entirely  wrong  in  principle,  and  I  do  not 


538     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

believe  in  it.  We  have  many  towns  and  villages  with  good 
water-power  and  other  natural  facilities,  which  will  bring  to 
them  industries,  without  exemption  from  taxation,  but  no 
place  can  derive  any  permanent  improvement  from  those  in- 
dustries that  we  have  to  hire  to  come,  and  pay  them  to  stay. 
I  hope,  with  all  due  deference  to  the  committee,  to  whom 
this  resolution  was  referred,  that  their  recommendations  will 
not  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — I  would  like  to  ask  the  gen- 
tleman from  Franklin  if  this  exemption  does  not  apply  to 
churches  and  charitable  institutions. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — If  the  gentleman  has  read  the  reso- 
lution he  will  find  that  it  includes  such  property  as  is  used  for 
profit  and  gain  only. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — That  was  the  point  to 
which  I  wish  to  call  the  attention  of  this  Convention.  Gen- 
tlemen have  been  talking  about  just  and  equal  taxation,  and 
that  everything  should  be  taxed.  This  does  not  look  as  if 
they  meant  it. 

The  only  trust  I  have  seen  here  is  the  lawyers'  trust  speak- 
ing upon  this  question,  and  it  seems  to  me  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin,  Mr.  Stone,  is  a  little  sore  because  he  didn't 
get  part  of  the  100  per  cent,  dividend. 

The  gentleman  on  my  left  has  spoken  in  relation  to  the 
town  of  Northwood.  He  cannot  be  familiar  with  the  reason 
why  a  shoe  factory  establishment  cannot  exist  in  Northwood. 
The  competition  in  the  shoe  business  is  so  great  that  you 
have  to  be  on  the  railroad  where  you  can  get  good  transporta- 
tion facilities  or  you  cannot  do  business  without  exemption 
from  taxation  and  that  was  the  reason  why  the  business  was 
obliged  to  leave  Northwood. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover — Was  it  not  true  that  a  shoe  industry 
in  Northwood  a  few  years  ago  came  before  the  legislature  and 
asked  that  a  bill  be  passed  permitting  a  further  ten  years'  ex- 
tension to  it,  on  the  ground  that  they  should  leave  the  town 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  539 

of  Northwood  unless  such,  exemption  was  given  it,  and  that 
that  bill  was  defeated,  and  they  thereupon  went  to  another 
town  where  they  were  exempt? 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — That  was  true,  but  the  rea- 
son they  asked  for  the  exemption  was  because  if  they  did  not 
have  it  they  were  unable  to  compete  with,  business  on  the  lines 
of  transportation.  That  is  a  big  consideration,  and  when  a 
gentleman  rises  upon  the  floor  and  insinuates  that  the  shoe 
business  shifts  from  place  to  place  every  ten  years  he  is  stat- 
ing what  is  not  true.  Take  for  instance  Nashua.  Estabrook 
&  Anderson  have  been  in  Nashua  for  years,  and  so  has  Brack- 
ett,  paying  out  hundreds  of  thousands  of  dollars  a  year  for 
labor,  building  up  the  city  of  Nashua.  And  Manchester, 
which  is  about  the  eleventh  city  in  the  manufacturing  of 
shoes  in  the  United  States,  has  come  to  that  position  on  ac- 
count of  the  exemptions  she  has  given  these  shoe  manufactur- 
ers. They  came  there  because  they  could  get  exemption,  and 
they  have  stayed  and  helped  build  up  the  city  of  Manchester. 
Exeter  has  profited  by  the  shoe  industry,  and  so  have  Little- 
ton and  Keene.  And  in  these  United  States,  with  a  gain  of 
$39,000,000  in  the  shoe  industry  in  the  last  ten  years,  New 
Hampshire  made  the  magnificent  sum  of  over  $11,000,000, 
and  made  it  because  she  had  these  laws,  while  Massachusetts, 
which  has  been  spoken  of  as  refusing  to  exempt  new  indus- 
tries, has  increased  less  than  a  million.  The  shoe  manufactur- 
ers in  this  country,  or  in  this  part  of  the  country,  have  come 
into  New  Hampshire  because  she  had  more  just  and  equitable 
laws  and  they  could  compete  better  with  the  West  in  New 
Hampshire  than  in  Massachusetts. 

It  is  not  a  question  of  abstract  principle  as  stated  by  these 
lawyers.  I  agree  with  them  that  no  firm  should  be  exempted 
more  than  ten  years,  and  no  firm  should  go  from  one  town  to 
another  in  New  Hampshire  in  order  to  be  exempted.  I  agree 
with  them  on  that  proposition,  but  I  do  not  assent  to  the  prop^ 
osition  that  we  can  induce  capital  to  come  into  this  state  from 
other  states  and  assist  us  in  building  up  taxable  property  here 


540     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

without  doing  something  to  attract  them.  Theoretically  they 
may  be  right,  but  if  they  are  that  theory  applies  to  every 
church  and  every  religious  organization  in  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire.  If  they  are  going  to  put  it  on  principle  and  on 
theory  they  should  tax  all  property,  but  if  they  are  going  to 
put  it  on  the  broad  basis  of  helping  business  in  this  state,  of 
building  up  New  Hampshire,  and  placing  her  in  a  position  to 
compete  with  other  states,  then  leave  the  law  as  it  is  and  not 
make  this  proposed  amendment  a  part  of  the  organic  law  of 
the  state. 

Mr.  Richards  of  Newport — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Convention:  I  have  listened  to  the  remarks  of  the 
various  gentlemen  that  have  preceded  me,  the  gentleman  from 
Andover,  Mr.  Stone,  the  gentleman  from  Somersworth,  Mr. 
Edgerly,  and  also  the  gentleman  from  Londonderry,  Mr.  Pills- 
bury,  who  represents  Derry,  as  I  understand,  in  this  Conven- 
tion. The  two  gentlemen  first  mentioned  were  members  of 
the  house  in  1885  when  the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr. 
Aldrich,  was  speaker.  I,  myself,  was  a  member  of  that  legis- 
lature, and  I  remember  very  well  the  contest  before  that  leg- 
islature for  the  extension  of  the  ten  years'  exemption  to  indus- 
trial enterprises  in  New  Hampshire.  I  was  opposed  to  that 
extension,  but  have  been  in  favor  of  ten  years'  exemption  of 
industries  in  our  towns  and  cities,  and  have  advocated  and 
supported  it  by  my  vote. 

I  am  to-day  of  a  different  opinion.  The  town  of  Newport 
has  had  experience  in  exempting  industries,  not  only  shoe  in- 
dustries, but  other  industries.  The  shoe  industries  we  have 
exempted  have  not  proved  successful  in  all  respects.  We  have 
raised  money  by  subscription,  installed  the  plants,  furnished 
water-power  for  these  companies,  and  after  ten  years  have  ex- 
pired they  come  to  us  and  say,  "What  are  you  going  to  do  for 
us  now?"  We  say,  "We  suppose  you  are  willing  to  pay  a  fair 
tax  with  the  rest  of  the  people."  But  they  say,  "No,  we  can 
go  to  other  places  and  get  exemption,"  and  they  ask  us  to 
pay  their  taxes  for  them  and  take  it  out  of  our  pockets.  They 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  541 

ask  us  to  provide  their  water-power  and  buildings  and  all  the 
facilities  for  their  business,  and  to  pay  their  taxes,  and  if  we 
fail  in  one  respect  to  do  what  they  ask  tttey  hold  over  our 
heads  the  threat  that  they  will  move  to  some  other  place 
where  they  can  get  all  of  these  facilities.  So  they  ignore  us 
and  threaten  constantly  and  continuously  to  leave  after  hav- 
ing taken  the  advantages  we  have  given  them  of  exemption 
of  taxes,  to  say  nothing  about  the  stock  we  have  subscribed 
and  paid  for  and  on  which  we  have  not  received  any  dividend. 

I  say  that  I  did  start  out  as  an  advocate  of  exemption  to 
these  industries  for  ten  years,  and  I  have  voted  for  it,  and  the 
industries  have  received  their  exemptions,  but  I  have  seen  the 
working  of  the  principle  in  its  practice,  and  1  believe  that  the 
effects  of  it  are  evil  in  the  end. 

There  may  be  special  instances  like  the  one  the  gentleman 
from  Londonderry,  Mr.  Pillsbury,  has  stated  in  Derry,  and 
there  may  be  instances  in  Manchester,  but  take  the  state  as  a 
whole  I  venture  to  say  that  the  practice  has  been  bad  and  it 
has  not  tended  to  the  advantage  of  the  state. 

I  hope  the  resolution  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  will  not  be  defeated,  and  I  hope  that  we 
shall  not  support  the  recommendation  of  the  committee  that 
it  is  inexpedient  to  amend.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  Leach  resolu- 
tion and  opposed  to  the  recommendation  of  the  committee, 

Mr.  S.  W.  Emery  of  Portsmouth —  I  hope  we  shall  make  no 
mistake  here  in  the  consideration  of  this  question.  It  is  true 
there  is  no  rule  which  always  works  well,  and  some  instances 
have  been  cited  here  in  which  the  exemption  of  taxation  has 
not  worked  well.  But,  Mr.  President,  I  take  it  those  in- 
stances are  not  enough  to  condemn  the  law. 

If  the  principle  of  this  proposition  of  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  prevails  it  means  that  no  more  rail- 
roads, either  steam  or  electric,  can  be  constructed  in  this 
state  which  can  be  exempted  from  taxation  in  New  Hamp- 
shire; it  means  that  we  can  get  no  other  industries  to  settle  in 
the  state  which  we  now  get  by  this  exemption. 


542     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

In  Portsmouth  we  have  an  industry  that  has  settled  there 
among  us  that  is  to  invest  six  million  dollars  in  a  plant  and 
that  will  employ*  2,400  men.  When  nine  years  more  have 
passed  they  will  be  subject  to  taxation  in  the  city  of  Ports- 
mouth and  will  pay  $150,000  a  year.  There  is  another  indus- 
try which  has  invested  a  million  dollars,  and  in  eight  years 
will  pay  a  tax  of  $20,000  a  year,  and  that  industry  is  our  best 
water  customer,  and  pays  from  seven  to  eight  thousand  dol- 
lars a  year  in  that  way.  The  other  industry  will  pay  us,  I 
venture  to  say,  $2,000  a  year  for  water  rent.  And  then  there 
is  the  construction  of  houses  for  the  employes  of  these  com- 
panies, which  means  a  large  increase  in  the  taxable  property 
of  more  than  a  million  dollars  more.  I  want  to  ask  you  if 
these  instances  which  have  been  working  ill  ought  to  be  set 
up  against  the  instances  where  the  law  has  worked  a  benefit 
to  the  state,  and  ought  to  be  allowed  to  outweigh  those  bene- 
fits. 

This  talk  about  trusts  is  not  one  that  should  frighten  us. 
A  trust  is  not  always  an  evil.  I  say  these  great  corporations 
that  come  into  the  state  and  that  mean  so  much  for  the  state 
by  bringing  money  and  employment  into  the  state,  ought  to 
be  exempted  from  taxation.  If  you  are  going  to  pass  an 
amendment  of  this  kind  you  are  going  to  discourage  these 
people.  You  are  going  to  discourage  the  railroad  people  and 
capitalists  of  all  kinds.  Does  not  that  amount  to  anything? 
You  are  going  to  discourage  the  construction  of  great  plants 
like  these  that  I  have  mentioned  in  Portsmouth.  I  say,  let 
us  not  be  misled  by  any  talk  about  trusts,  or  of  instances 
where  the  application  of  this  principle  of  exemption  has  not 
worked  well.  Let  us  not  be  misled  by  talk  of  principle  and 
theory.  We  are  here  simply  to  decide  a  practical  question  in 
a  practical  way,  and  I  hope  it  will  be  so  treated. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Hillsborough — This  principle  of  exemption 
may  be  false  in  theory,  but  it  seems  to  me  it  has  worked  well 
in  practice  in  New  Hampshire.  In  the  matter  of  shoe  fac- 
tories there  may  be  some  migratory  shoe  shops  in  New  Hamp- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  543 

shire,  but  they  are  few  in  numbers  and  importance  as  com- 
pared with  large  establishments  such  as  exist  in  Manchester, 
Deny,  and  Nashua,  and  which  have  been  such  an  aid  in 
building  up  those  towns. 

I  have  in  mind  another  branch  of  industry.  In  the  town 
where  I  live,  Hillsborough,  there  are  two  establishments 
which  were  induced  to  come  there  in  the  first  place  by  this 
tax  exemption.  They  have  gone  on  increasing  their  plant, 
and  neither  of  them  has  asked  for  further  exemption,  al- 
though they  have  been  continually  adding  to  and  enlarging 
their  business  and  have  been  instrumental  in  building  up  the 
community,  and  have  added  a  large  amount  of  taxable  prop- 
erty that  would  not  have  been  there  but  for  them. 

I  hope  this  report  of  the  committee  will  prevail.  I  am  not 
in  favor  of  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin,  Mr.  Leach. 

Mr.  Howe  of  Concord — Mr.  President  and'  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention:  I  belong  to  the  "lawyers'  trust,"  so-called. 
This,  gentlemen,  is  a  Constitutional  Convention  called  for 
the  purpose  of  revising  the  present  Constitution,  as  I  under- 
stand it.  It  seems  to  me,  gentlemen,  that  it  is  nothing  to 
this  Convention  whether  the  legislatures  of  the  past  have  en- 
acted good  laws  or  bad  laws,  or  constitutional  laws  or  uncon- 
stitutional laws.  It  is  a  question  for  the  judicial  department 
of  the  government  to  determine  whether  a  statute  is  constitu- 
tional or  not.  Now  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  Mr.  Leach, 
has  said  that  the  supreme  court  has  twice,  not  exactly  de- 
clined, but  neglected  to  answer  the  question  put  to  them, 
once  by  the  house  of  representatives  and  once  by  the  senate, 
namely,  whether  the  provision  of  the  statute  by  which  man- 
ufacturing corporations  are  entitled  upon  vote  of  the  town  to 
ten  years'  exemption  is  constitutional  or  not.  As  I  remem- 
ber those  decisions,  the  opinions  rendered  by  the  justices  were 
put  upon  the  ground,  as  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  states, 
that  there  was  insufficient  time  in  which  to  consider  the  ques- 
tions. The  question  was  submitted  to  the  court  in  each  in- 


544    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

stance  at,  or  very  near,  the  close  of  the  legislative  session, 
and  there  was  insufficient  time  to  consider  an  important  ques- 
tion of  that  kind. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  only  thing  which  concerns  us  here 
is  the  present  Constitution — whether  it  needs  amendment  or 
not.  And  in  order  to  determine  that  question  we  should 
know  what  the  present  Constitution  provides  upon  this  ques- 
tion. The  provision  is  simply  this.  Part  two,  article  four, 
under  the  head  of  "general  court,"  gives  the  general  court 
power  to  appropriate  and  levy  proportionate  and  reasonable 
assessments,  rates,  and  taxes  upon  all  the  inhabitants  and  all 
the  residents  of  the  state,  and  upon  all  property  within  the 
same.  That  is  the  only  provision  in  the  Constitution  which 
has  any  bearing  upon  this  subject,  Now  how  are  you  going 
to  frame  a  provision  as  an  amendment  which  is  more  compre- 
hensive than  what  you  already  have?  It  seems  to  me  that  the 
recommendation  of  the  committee  should  be  adopted  and 
that  this  matter  should  be  allowed  to  stand  upon  the  present 
Constitution  as  it  does  now,  and  then  any  dissatisfaction  with 
the  existing  conditions  under  the  existing  statute  can  be 
passed  upon  by  the  supreme  court.  If  it  comes  to  such  a 
point  that  some  one  wants  to. raise  this  question, — when  a 
town  votes  to  exempt  a  manufacturing  industry, — a  citizen 
taxpayer  of  the  town  can  apply  to  the  court  and  it  will  then 
be  in  order  for  the  court  to  determine  whether  this  statute  is 
constitutional  or  unconstitutional.  Until  the  supreme  court 
has  determined  that  question  I  think  we  best  not  tinker  with 
the  present  Constitution. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lisbon — This  question  is  now  before  the  su- 
preme court  of  this  state,  in  a  case  from  Grafton  county 
which  has  already  been  argued.  I  understand  the  court  has, 
in  an  opinion  which  is  in  a  comparatively  recently  volume  of 
the  New  Hampshire  Reports,  expressed  an  opinion  on  the 
constitutionality  of  this  law,  and  in  favor  of  it.  I  understand 
the  courts  in  other  states  have  broken  away  from  this  princi- 
ple, and  that  is  the  general  tendency — to  break  away  from 
tax  exemption  as  it  is  not  equality. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  545 

I  have  seen  some  of  the  workings  of  this  law  on  a  small 
scale.  I  have  seen  towns,  covered  with  forests  and  with  val- 
uable timber  vote  to  exempt  lumber  manufacturers  for  terms 
of  ten  years.  The  plants  were  established  in  the  towns,  cut 
off  the  timber,  and  at  the  expiration  of  ten  years  moved  away 
or  failed,  and  the  timber  went  with  them.  That  robbed  the 
towns  not  only  of  the  taxes  on  the  plants,  but  also  robbed 
them  of  the  taxes  that  should  have  been  paid  upon  the  lands. 
It  robbed  the  towns  of  their  forests,  and,  in  short,  left  them 
in  a  very  much  worse  condition  at  the  end  of  the  ten  years. 
A  law  that  permits  any  town  to  vote  such  an  exemption  is 
pernicious  in  principle  and  dangerous  in  practice. 

Mr.  "VVason  of  Nashua — I  have  sat  here  and  listened  to  the 
debate  upon  this  subject  with  some  interest.  Like  my  friend 
from  Londonderry,  I  did  not  anticipate  the  necessity  of  any- 
body speaking  upon  this  subject.  Listening  to  the  remarks 
of  several  gentlemen,  I  have  wondered  if  all  the  manu- 
facturers in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  were  dishonest 
men;  because  it  seems  to  be  the  spirit  of  the  arguments  of  the 
majority  of  the  speakers  that  a  man  will  come  to  the  city  of 
Concord,  or  of  Manchester,  or  some  other  town  or  city,  and 
make  a  contract  with  that  town  or  city  that  they  will  go  there 
and  manufacture  and  stay  there  if  they  are  exempted  for  ten 
years,  and  then  after  the  ten  years,  if  they  can,  they  leave. 
They  lead  the  people  to  believe  that  they  will  have  permanent 
industries  in  those  cities  if  the  business  is  a  success,  but  in- 
stead of  that  when  ten  years  has  passed  they  forget  their  con- 
tract made  when  they  desired  exemption  and  leave  the  cities. 
Is  not  that  dishonest,  and  are  the  manufacturers  of  the  state 
dishonest?  That  is  what  the  arguments  of  my  friend  from 
Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  and  the  arguments  of  the  other  gentle- 
men speaking  in  the  same  line  would  intimate.  I  deny  the 
truth  of  these  insinuations  most  emphatically.  Our  manu- 
facturers are  as  honest  as  any  man  that  sits  in  this  Conven- 
tion. I  come  from  the  second  city  of  New  Hampshire,  a  city 
that  has  been  benefited  and  has  prospered  under  the  wise 
35 


546     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

legislation  in  favor  of  exempting  manufacturers.  I  have  in 
mind  at  this  present  moment  that  years  ago,  in  the  city  of 
Nashua,  was  a  watch  factory  that  by  misfortune  was  burned, 
and  the  people  who  owned  it  asked  for  favors  from  the  tax- 
payers. The  taxpayers  acted  honestly  and  what  in  their 
judgment  they  thought  was  for  the  best  good  of  the  city,  but 
time  has  proved  that  they  acted  unwisely.  They  let  that 
watch  factory  go  away  for  want  of  exemption  from  the  city 
and  move  to  Waltham,  and  to-day  it  is  employing  a  large 
number  of  persons,  I  do  not  know  how  many,  and  I  do  not 
know  how  much  money  it  pays  in  taxes  to  the  town  of 
Waltham,  but  it  is  a  large  sum,  or  how  much  money  it  is  pay- 
ing out  weekly  to  support  themselves  and  the  families  of  the 
employes,  but  it  is  enough  so  that  Nashua  wishes  it  were 
there.  There  is  no  citizen  in  Nashua  to-day,  I  believe,  but 
what  wishes  that  the  Waltham  watch  factory  had  been  kept 
in  Nashua.  If  it  had,  we  to-day  would  be  reaping  the  benefit 
of  the  taxes  and  the  benefit  of  the  manufacturing  of  watches 
in  our  city  instead  of  a  city  in  the  neighboring  state  of  Mas- 
sachusetts reaping  those  benefits. 

Now,  then,  one  word  as  to  the  suggestion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Lisbon,  Mr.  Morris,  about  the  wood-working  establish- 
ments depleting  the  forests  of  his  town.  I  am  astonished  that 
the  bright  people  of  Lisbon  would  vote  to  exempt  from  taxa- 
tion a  plant  in  order  to  establish  a  temporary  manufactory  for 
the  purpose  of  depleting  the  property  of  the  town.  If  tney 
did  that,  they  need  legislation  to  protect  themselves  but  not 
legislation  to  deprive  other  places  of  the  benefits  they  get 
from  a  wise  use  of  this  beneficent  law.  Certainly  the  people 
of  Lisbon  were  wrong  in  their  judgment,  and  my  suggestion 
to-  him  is  to  go  back  when  this  Convention,  adjourns,  if  it 
ever  does,  and  to  lecture  to  his  neighbors  and  citizens  in  Lis- 
bon and  point  out  to  them  as  clearly  as  he  has  to  this  Con- 
vention their  mistake  and  their  lack  of  wisdom,  and  I  believe 
they  will  rally  around  him  and  do  as  he  suggests  and  refuse  to 
exempt  such  manufacturers  or  enterprises  from  taxation. 

I  would  also  speak  of  the  shoe  industry  which  has  been 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  547 

criticised  considerably  here.  In  my  city  we  have  large  fac- 
tories of  that  industry,  and  we  have  been  benefited  by  them, 
as  they  have  helped  to  build  up  the  city  of  Nashua  until  it  has 
become  the  second  city  in  size  in  the  state.  Certainly  Nashua 
has  benefited  by  this  principle  of  exemption. 

One  man  suggested  that  he  wanted  every  piece  of  property 
taxed  equally.  That  is  a  big  proposition,  because  each  man 
in  a  city  or  town  will  see  to  it  that  his  property  is  not  valued 
quite  as  high  as  that  of  some  other  man. 

But  that  is  not  the  question  here.  The  question  is,  what 
shall  we  decide  to  do  with  reference  to  amending  the  Consti- 
tution of  New  Hampshire  in  this  respect.  If  the  city  of 
Nashua,  or  the  town  of  Lisbon,  wishes  to  exempt  a  manu- 
facturer from  taxation  what  harm  does  it  do  to  you,  or  to  the 
citizens  of  the  other  towns  or  cities.  You  are  asking  the  cities 
and  large  towns  to  bear  the  burden  of  taxation,  and  we  do  not 
murmur  at  that. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — We  do. 

Mr.  Wason — Perhaps  you  do.  We  don't.  Now  we  ask  you 
to  let  us  govern  ourselves,  and  if  a  permanent  manufacturing 
establishment  wants  to  locate  in  the  city  of  Nashua,  let  the 
taxpayers  determine  whether  they  will  allow  them  to  come 
free  from  taxation  for  ten  years  and  whether  the  rest  of  us 
that  are  not  exempt  are  willing  to  make  up  the  little  defi- 
ciency arising  therefrom.  It  does  not  affect  you  from  the 
town  of  Lisbon,  or  you  from  the  city  of  Concord,  or  of  Man- 
chester, but  it  does  affect  the  city  of  Nashua.  How  does  it 
affect  us?  If  that  establishment  comes  there  with  a  large 
number  of  employes  who  establish  homes  in  the  city,  it  in- 
creases the  population  of  the  city,  it  increases  the  taxable 
property  of  the  city,  and  the  state  board  of  equalization  then 
comes  to  us  and  they  make  us  contribute  more  to  the  state 
and  county  taxes.  In  that  way  we  are  benefited.,  not  only 
ourselves,  but  we  are  benefiting  the  county,  and  we  are  bene- 
fiting the  whole  state.  We  of  the  city  who  are  taxpayers 
have  to  make  up  the  deficiency  from  our  own  pockets,  but 


548     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

you  of  the  other  cities  and  towns  of  the  county  and  of  the 
state  get  some  benefit  and  do  not  have  to  pay  any  of  the  ex- 
pense. 

To  the  country  town  whose  forests  are  being  cut  down  and 
carried  away  I  would  say  that  you  can  refuse  to  exempt  the 
corporation  or  individual  that  comes  into  your  town  to  do 
that,  and  I  hope  the  suggestion  that  I  make  will  be  followed. 
But  that  is  no  argument  why  you  should  say  that  Nashua 
should  not  have  the  privilege  of  getting  what  benefit  it  can 
from  the  law  relating  to  the  exemption  of  manufacturing 
plants  that  is  now  on  the  statute  book. 

Mr.  Johnson  of  Colebrook — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention: 
I  hope  this  Convention  will  vote  to  sustain  the  recommenda- 
tion made  by  this  committee.  I  believe  it  is  still  safe  to  trust 
this  matter  to  the  vote  of  the  towns  and  the  cities.  I  believe 
there  has  been  no  injustice  shown  here  as  a  cause  for  any 
change  in  our  Constitution  or  organic  law.  I  believe  it  is  safe 
to  trust  the  men  who  are  carrying  on  the  affairs  of  their  towns 
and  their  counties,  and  I  say  I  hope  the  report  of  this  com- 
mittee will  receive  the  sanction  of  this  body. 

Mr.  Daley  of  Berlin — I  have  the  honor,  Mr.  President  and 
gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  to  represent  Ward  Two  of  the 
city  of  Berlin.  In  1880  the  town  of  Berlin  had,  if  I  remem- 
ber correctly,  a  population  of  1,142.  At  that  time  there  was 
a  small  sawmill  in  what  is  now  the  city  of  Berlin.  In  1885, 
the  question  was  presented  to  the  then  town  of  Berlin  as  to 
whether  or  not  it  would  exempt  from  taxation  a  corporation 
which  desired  to  locate  there,  known  as  the  "Glen  Manufac- 
turing company."  The  little  town  in  its  sovereign  capacity 
voted  to  do  so.  That  corporation  in  response  to  the  induce- 
ments thus  offered  to  them  located  in  the  town  of  Berlin. 

That  act  on  the  part  of  that  corporation,  that  act  on  the 
part  of  the  town,  formed  the  nucleus  for  the  future  city  of 
Berlin,  for  an  immense  increase  in  the  taxable  property  in  the 
city  of  Berlin,  and  an  enormous  increase  in  the  population, 
and  an  enormous  increase  in  the  amount  of  money  collected 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  549 

by  taxation.  This  increase  is  a  direct  result  of  the  law  which 
the  proposed  amendment,  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  seeks  to  abolish. 

To-day  the  population  of  the  city  of  Berlin  is  in  the  neigh- 
borhood of  10,000.  Twenty  years  ago  it  was  only  1,100  and 
some  odd,  and  up  to  1885,  when  the  Glen  Manufacturing 
company  first  commenced  the  establishment  of  their  plant,  it 
was  very  little  in  excess  of  what  was  given  by  the  census  of 
1880.  So  it  resulted  that  in  seventeen  years  from  the  time 
that  manufacturing  establishment  came  there,  to  the  present 
time,  under  the  magnificent  operation  of  this  law,  the  city  has 
increased  in  population  to  10,000  people.  To-day  there  are 
several  diversified  interests  in  the  city  which  are  the  direct  re- 
sult of  this  law. 

I  say  further  in  answer  to  the  gentleman  from  Lisbon,  Mr. 
Morris,  regarding  the  depletion  of  forests,  that  the  forests  in 
our  town  are  depleting,  but  to  offset  that,  within  three 
months,  one  of  the  important  corporations  of  the  city  of  Ber- 
lin has  purchased  in  Canada,  on  a  tributary  to  the  St.  Law- 
rence river,  an  immense  tract  of  timber  land.  They  have  pur- 
chased an  entire  township  and  are  ready  to  cut,  or  go  to  cut- 
ting, that  off,  and  all  that  timber  is  coming  from  Canada  to 
be  manufactured  in  the  city  of  Berlin. 

Now  I  want  to  know  whether  it  is  wise,  taking  this  as  a  fair 
sample  of  the  operation  of  the  law,  for  us  to  come  here  and 
recommend  a  change  in  the  organic  law  of  the  state  which 
will  practically  cut  off  towns  of  that  character  from  the  privi- 
leges which  they  now  enjoy. 

Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I  trust 
and  hope  that  the  recommendation  of  the  committee  will 
prevail. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover — Just  a  word  in  reply  to  the  gentle- 
man who  has  just  spoken.  He  has  said  that  Berlin  has  in- 
creased to  10,000  in  population.  Very  true.  Why?  It  is 
the  magnificent  water-power,  the  forests  of  wood,  and  the 
peculiar  adaptability  of  the  surroundings  and  facilities  of  that 


550     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

town  to  the  different  manufacturing  companies  which  have 
gone  there  and  established  their  business  there.  Does  the 
gentleman  believe  that  because  these  corporations  or  indus- 
tries were  exempted  from  taxation  is  the  reason  why  the  town 
has  prospered  so? 

The  gentleman  from  Portsmouth  says  the  same  thing,  that 
they  have  a  large  industry  there.  Do  you  think  it  is  wholly 
because  they  were  exempted  from  taxation  that  they  came  to 
Portsmouth  and  established  themselves  in  that  city? 

I  think  Berlin  is  a  clear  instance  where  taxation  had 
nothing  to  do  with  it  at  all.  In  my  own  village  we  have  one 
of  the  largest  manufactories  of  its  kind  in  the  United  States, 
but  it  did  not  grow  up  there  because  exempted  from  taxation. 

One  thing  more.  This  amendment  introduced  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Franklin  does  not  touch  any  of  the  property  or 
the  existing  rights  of  any  one  in  New  Hampshire,  but  simply 
says  that  hereafter  exemption  from  taxation  will  not  be  al- 
lowed, that  this  inequality  shall  not  go  on  any  longer.  It 
affects  no  industries  now  established. 

Mr.  Abbott  of  Derry — Don't  you  think  that  these  manu- 
facturing establishments  will  not  leave  Massachusetts  and 
come  into  New  Hampshire  and  establish  themselves  here  un- 
less they  can  see  some  advantage  to  themselves? 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover — I  do  not  believe  that  any  legiti- 
mate industry  will  hesitate  to  locate  in  a  place  because  they 
are  not  exempted  from  taxation.  If  they  can  get  exemption 
from  taxation  they  will  do  so,  but  if  there  is  a  place  where 
they  can  come  and  earn  money  they  will  build  whether  they 
are  exempted  or  not. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord — The  gentleman  from  Andover 
says  that  this  amendment  will  not  affect  any  property  in  the 
state  except  new  property  hereafter  created.  Gentlemen,  that 
is  the  object  of  the  law.  The  object  of  the  statute  is  to  en- 
courage the  increase  of  property  and  to  make  it  applicable  to 
property  brought  here  and  invested. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  551 

Now  the  view  of  the  committee  was  this: 

The  Constitution  provides  for  equality  in  the  apportion- 
ment and  assessment  of  taxes.  If  that  prohibits  this  exemp- 
tion it  is  sufficient.  The  ground  on  which  exemptions  of  this 
character  have  been  upheld,  as  I  understand  the  decisions  of 
the  court,  is  the  contractual  rights  resulting  from  the  town's 
vote,  and  the  investment  of  capital  thereunder.  Under  the 
existing  constitutional  provision,  with  reference  to  equality 
of  taxation,  as  I  understand,  it  has  never  been  judicially  de- 
termined whether  exemptions  of  this  character  are  constitu- 
tionally permissible.  If  application  was  made  to  the  court  to 
enjoin  the  action  of  a  town  or  city  with  respect  to  granting 
this  exemption  there  could  be  a  judicial  determination  of  the 
constitutionality  of  our  present  law. 

A  town  cannot  now  exempt  any  property  in  existence  at 
the  time  the  vote  is  passed.  It  can  exempt  new  property  only. 
The  legislature  should  be  entrusted,  with  the  right  to  with- 
hold or  continue  the  right  to  permit  the  different  municipali- 
ties of  the  state  to  grant  or  withhold  such  exemptions. 

New  enterprises  need  all  the  legitimate  encouragement 
that  can  be  accorded  them;  and  they  should,  at  least,  have  all 
the  means  of  encouragement  now  existing.  Those  should  be 
increased  rather  than  diminished. 

Mr.  Pike  of  Haverhill — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention:  I  came  in  late  and  do  not  know  exactly  how 
the  matter  stands  before  the  Convention,  but  I  have  heard 
enough  of  the  discussion  so  that  I  want  to  give  a  little  per- 
sonal illustration.  It  is  this:  We  have  recently  located  a 
plant  at  Littleton,  N.  H.  We  were  debating  for  some  little 
time  where  we  would  build  that  mill  and  rather  wished  to 
locate  it  in  Haverhill,  K  H.,  but  Haverhill  would  not  give  one 
particle  of  encouragement  to  us,  and  would  not  aid  us  by  ex- 
empting us  from  taxation  or  do  anything  in  that  line.  Lit- 
tleton would,  and  we  located  our  plant  in  that  town.  Up  to 
.this  time  we  have  put  between  thirty  and  forty  thousand  dol- 
lars into  the  property,  we  have  from  sixty  to  seventy  skilled 


552     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

employes  there  with,  their  families,  and  the  taxable  property 
in  the  town  of  Littleton  has  been  largely  increased  on  account 
of  our  business,  so  that  they  will  receive  more  profit  yearly 
from  our  business  than  all  they  gave  us. 

I  find  that  many  towns  in  different  states  are  offering  in- 
ducements in  the  way  of  exemption  from  taxation  and  in 
other  ways  to  bring  in  manufacturing  industries,  and  if  there 
is  any  state  in  the  Union  that  needs  such  industries  more  than 
New  Hampshire  I  do  not  know  where  it  is. 

Mr.  Bartlett  of  Sunapee — The  most  of  our  discussion  has 
come  from  gentlemen  from  the  large  cities  and  towns.  I  wish 
to  state  how  this  matter  has  worked  in  the  little  republics. 
Within  the  last  few  years  we  have  exempted  two  manufactur- 
ing plants  for  a  term  of  ten  years.  Taxable  property  in  our 
town  has  been  increased  about  $100,000,  and  there  has  al- 
ready been  built  thirty  or  forty  thousand  dollars  in  houses, 
and  so  it  has  been  a  great  benefit  to  our  little  republic.  We 
have  institutions  there  that  have  come  to  stay  and  come  to 
benefit  the  town  and  the  state. 

We  have  had  in  the  past  several  calls  from  those  tramp  shoe 
shops,  and  we  tell  them  they  had  better  go  to  Newport  where 
the  people  are  rich,  as  well  as  generous,  and  the  result  has 
been  as  told  us  by  Mr.  Richards. 

Mr.  Kimball  of  Bennington — Years  ago  the  town  of  Ben- 
nington  voted  five  per  cent,  of  its  valuation  to  the  railroad 
from  Hillsborough  to  Peterborough  and  again  they  voted  the 
same  thing  when  the  first  term  of  years  had  expired.  The  sec- 
ond term  expired  with  not  better  prospect  that  the  road  would 
be  built.  By  and  by  the  Manchester  &  Keene  railroad  started 
up,  and  we  again  voted  to  assist  that  railroad,  thinking  the 
Peterborough  &  Hillsborough  road  would  never  be  built. 
When  the  Peterborough  &  Hillsborough  railrad  was  built  it 
passed  directly  through  our  village  to  Peterborough,  while 
the  other  was  a  mile  and  a  half  from  the  village. 

In  a  little  while  a  gentleman  proposed  to  come  into  our 
town  to  do  business  if  we  would  exempt  him  for  a  term  of 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  553 

ten  years.  The  thing  was  done,  and  he  came  to  us,  and  dur- 
ing the  time  "between  the  time  that  the  railroad  came  and  this 
business  came  into  the  town  to  the  present,  the  number  of 
tenements  have  doubled,  and  the  population  has  largely  in- 
creased. We  have  a  thriving  little  community  there  to-day. 

A  year  ago  last  spring  a  paper  mill  company,  W.  T.  Barker 
&  Co.,  of  Boston,  asked  exemption  to  them  for  a  term  of  ten 
years,  and  the  vote  of  the  town  to  exempt  them  was  unani- 
mous. To-day  they  are  laying  out  for  the  purpose  of  a  new 
mill  which  is  to  take  the  place  of  an  old  one,  about  $250,000. 
We  voted  to  exempt  them  on  the  improvements  and  the  stock 
in  trade,  and  we  expect  as  a  result  of  this  exemption  that  the 
number  of  help  employed  in  the  new  mill  will  be  twice,  if  not 
three  times,  as  many  as  in  the  old  one. 

I  am  a  member  of  a  small  manufacturing  firm  myself,  who 
with  its  predecessors  have  paid  one  hundred  cents  on  a  dollar 
on  all  our  debts  for  the  last  forty  years  or  more,  and  we  voted 
to  exempt  the  paper  mill  company,  and  I  would  vote  again 
if  I  had  the  chance. 

I  hope  the  statute  will  remain  as  it  is. 

The  question  being  stated,  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  called  for 
a  division,  which  resulted  in  260  gentlemen  voting  in  the  af- 
firmative and  37  gentlemen  voting  in  the  negative,  and  the 
resolution  of  the  committee  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend 
the  Constitution  in  this  respect  was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 

AFTERNOON. 

The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  the  Convention  re- 
solved itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  consider  the 
various  resolutions  relating  to  trusts. 


554     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Norris  of  Portsmouth  in  the  chair.) 

The  Chairman — Gentlemen,  we  are  now  in  Committee  of 
the  Whole.  The  questions  before  the  committee  are  the  reso- 
lution offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler, 
and  the  other  resolutions  on  trusts.  The  chair  awaits  the 
pleasure  of  the  committee. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton: 

Mr.  Chairman:  In  my  opinion,  the  one  thing,  more  than 
any  other,  which  is  creating  unrest  among  the  people  of  this 
country,  and  the  one  thing,  more  than  any  other,  which  in 
the  near  future,  unless  checked,  will  disturb  and  endanger  the 
stability  and  usefulness  of  our  government,  is  the  spirit  of 
commercial  greed  which  manifests  itself  in  the  purpose  to 
wrest  business  from  its  natural  channels,  and  to  put  the 
industries,  upon  which  the  output  of  the  necessaries  of  life 
depends,  into  the  hands  of  a  few.  In  short,  to  make  the 
business  of  the  country  and  the  necessaries  of  life  depend  up- 
on the  imperious  will  of  a  few  gigantic  corporate  combina- 
tions known  as  trusts.  The  harm  is  that  such  a  situation  in 
effect  destroys,  and  it  is  intended  by  the  promoters  of  trusts 
that  such  a  situation  shall  destroy,  free  and  fair  competition 
in  the  trades  and  industrial  pursuits. 

I  rise  at  this  late  day  in  the  session  to'  discuss  this  great 
question  with  no  small  degree  of  trepidation.  I  shall  be 
frank  with  the  convention  and  say  that  it  was  my  purpose, 
when  coming  here,  to  take  part  in  the  discussion  of  the  ques- 
tions relating  to  the  principle  involved  in  these  resolutions 
and  to  limit  my  activity  to  these  measures.  But  as  you  know, 
I  have  been  drawn  into  some  other  matters.  That  fact,  how- 
ever, makes  my  sense  of  duty  no  less  in  respect  to  these  vari- 
ous resolutions. 

I  am  not  standing  before  you  as  the  paid  attorney  for  or 
against  any  trust  or  corporate  combination.  My  life  for  the 
last  few  years  has  been  far  removed  from  such  relations.  I 
am  fully  aware  that  the  man  who  expresses  the  sentiments 
which  I  am  to  express  this  afternoon,  puts  himself  in  a  situa- 
tion to  be  affected  by  the  influences  which  the  great  combi- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  555 

nations  of  our  country  throw  against  any  man  who  raises  his 
voice  to  speak  what  ought  to  be  spoken.  Therefore  I  am  not 
speaking  with  a  view  of  personal  advantage.  I  am  speaking, 
Mr.  Chairman,  from  a  sense  of  duty.  I  shall  say  what  I  be- 
lieve, and  with  that,  shall  be  entirely  content. 

I  desire  at  the  outset,  Mr.  Chairman,  to  invite  the  attention 
of  this  assembly  to  the  recent  utterances  of  that  very  distin- 
guished gentleman  in  the  West — the  Federal  Judge  in  the 
Seventh  Circuit,  if  that  is  the  Chicago  Circuit,  and  I  believe 
it  is, — who  is  much  talked  of  as  the  successor  of  the  present 
Chief  Justice  of  the  United  States,  when  that  distinguished 
jurist  shall  retire,  a  very  courageous  and  very  learned  man, 
who  became  famous,  as  you  will  remember,  a  few  years  ago  in 
connection  with  the  great  strike  in  Chicago.  I  refer  to  Judge 
Grosscup.  Judge  Grosscup,  a  few  days  ago,  speaking  to  the 
University  of  Nebraska,  gave  utterance  to  these  startling 
words: 

One-third,  or  more,  of  the  industries  of  the  United  States  have 
passed  from  the  ownership  of  individuals,  or  local  corporations,  into 
the  great  bodies  of  property  known  as  the  trusts.  Should  the  pro- 
cess go  on  until  all  our  industries  are  thus  consolidated,  as  many 
well-informed  men  now  think  probable,  the  so-called  trusts  will  have 
absorbed  nearly  one-sixth  of  all  the  wealth  of  all  kinds  in  the  United 
States.  Nothing  in  history,  outside  of  the  rise  of  the  federal  sys- 
tem, has  left  so  striking  a  change  in  what  may  be  called  the  per- 
sonnel of  ownership.  If  the  process  of  the  last  few  years  goes  on 
uncha-nged,  the  universality  of  ownership  that  characterized  our 
past, — an  ownership  of  our  industries  widely  spread  among  the  peo- 
ple,— will  be  all  but  lost. 

Mr.  President,  if  we  are  not  there  now,  we  are  on  the  swift 
road  to  commercial  despotism.  Eead  the  story  of  the  fate  of 
the  republics  of  the  past!  Read  the  story  of  the  Israelitish 
Commonwealth,  the  first  republic  of  which  we  have  any  re- 
cord,— and  it  was  essentially  a  republic, — existing  fifteen  hun- 
dred years  before  the  birth  of  Christ,  where  they  had  a  consti- 
tutional provision,  limiting  the  ownership  of  real  estate  to 
twenty  acres,  and  other  constitutional  safeguards  against 
aggregations.  This  republic  existed  for  four  or  five  hundred 
years  but  was  finally  brought  under  the  dominating  influence 
of  property  interests.  One  safeguard  after  another  was 
broken  until  ninety-five  per  cent  of  the  property  and  the 


556     JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

wealth,  of  the  country  was  in  the  hands  of  five  per  cent  of  the 
people  and  the  government  was  overthrown!  This  is  the 
story,  speaking  generally,  of  every  republic  that  has  existed 
since.  Property  aggregations  with  their  unbalancing,  over- 
reaching, and  dominating  influences  have  been  the  rock  upon 
which  they  have  been  wrecked. 

As  Judge  Grosscup  has  observed,  there  is  no  parallel  in  the 
history  of  the  world  to  our  progress  in  the  direction  of  com- 
mercial domination.  The  swiftness  of  the  race  in  our  coun- 
try towards  despotic  control  of  the  industries  outruns  any- 
thing in  history. 

It  is  against  this  evil  that  the  resolution  of  the  distin- 
guished gentleman  from  Concord,  Ex-Senator  Chandler,  is 
directed.  The  phraseology  of  the  resolution  is  in  the  incisive 
and  emphatic  style  of  expression  of  which  that  gentleman  is  a 
master.  The  basic  principle  of  the  declaration,  which  he  pro- 
poses as  an  amendment  to  the  constitution  of  our  state,  clear- 
ly embraces  the  idea  of  the  natural  and  essential  right  of  free 
and  fair  competition  in  the  trades  and  industries.  It  is  as 
follows: 

"Kesolution  offered  by  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord: 

"Article  82;  at  the  end  thereof  add: 

Individual  enterprise  and  competition  in  trade  should  be  protected 
against  monopolies  which  tend  to  hinder  or  destroy  them.  It  shall 
be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  limit  the  size  and  functions  of  all 
corporations,  to  prohibit  fictitious  capitalization  therein,  and  to  so 
provide  for  their  supervision  and  government  that  they  will  be  the 
servants  and  not  the  masters  of  the  people. 

Is  any  gentleman  going  to  stand  up  in  this  convention  and 
maintain  the  negative  of  the  proposition  that  it  shall  be  the 
duty  of  the  legislature  to  limit  the  size  and  functions  of  all 
corporations,  and  to  prohibit  fictitious  capitalization?  "Who 
opposes  that  proposition  and  maintains  before  an  intelligent 
people  that  fictitious  capitalization,  or  in  other  words,  watered 
stock,  should  be  sustained  as  a  principle  in  business?  The 
resolution  further  declares  it  to  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature 
to  provide  for  the  supervision  and  government  of  corpora- 
tions, so  that  they  will  be  the  servants,  and  not  the  masters, 
of  the  people.  I  am  interested  to  see  who  will  take  the  nega- 
tive of  that  proposition,  and  maintain  that  the  great  corpora- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  557 

tions  of  the  country  shall  be  the  masters,  rather  than  the  ser- 
vants of  the  people.  This  resolution  also  declares  that  indi- 
vidual enterprise  and  competition  in  trade  should  be  encour- 
aged and  protected  against  monopolies  which  tend  to  hinder 
or  destroy  them.  Who  will  maintain  in  New  Hampshire,  or 
elsewhere,  that  individual  enterprise  or  competition  in  trade 
should  not  be  encouraged  and  protected,  but  hindered  and 
destroyed  by  monopolies? 

This  resolution  clearly  states  a  great  fundamental  prin- 
ciple, in  language  which  the  people  of  this  state  will  under- 
stand, and  it  clearly  expresses  a  truth  which  the  trusts  ought 
to  understand  as  one  which  rests  in  the  heads  and  hearts  of 
New  Hampshire  people.  The  form  of  expression  employed 
in  the  resolution  is  satisfactory  to  me  save  in  a  single  respect. 
The  one  suggestion  I  would  make  to  the  distinguished  gentle- 
man is  that  he  so  amend  his  resolution  as  to  clearly  express 
the  idea  of  publicity.  This  may  be  a  matter  of  detail  and  I 
do  not  insist  upon  it.  Very  likely  it  is  better  to  leave  it  to 
the  legislature  to  supply  the  details.  But  it  is  essential  that 
the  people  should  know,  and  that  the  government  should 
know,  how  much  the  people  are  being  cheated  on  the  neces- 
saries of  life,  like  sugar,  and  beef  and  oil,  and  hundreds  of 
other  things,  and  it  is  necessary  that  they  should  know  what 
dividends  are  being  made  on  watered  stock. 

This  resolution  proclaims  a  truth  which,  in  my  judgment, 
may  properly  be  set  forth,  among  the  principles  declared  in 
the  Bill  of  Eights,  as  a  principle  which  should  govern  among 
men. 

The  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  (Mr. 
Starr),  and  that  of  the  gentleman  from  Nashua  (Mr.  Ledoux), 
involve  the  same  general  principle  and  relate  to  the  duty  of 
the  legislature,  and  undertake  to  confer  upon  that  body  fur- 
ther powers  in  respect  to  the  control  of  trusts.  These  reso- 
lutions, as  I  understand  it, — and  I  suppose  it  is  a  proper  mat- 
ter to  be  stated  here, — were  drawn  by  the  distinguished  and 
accomplished  gentleman  who  was  the  representative  of  the 
great  Democratic  party  in  the  last  gubernatorial  campaign, 
Mr.  Hollis.  Now  while  I  do  not  speak  in  any  political  sense 
or  partisan  sense,  because  I  believe  this  to  be  a  business  ques- 
tion and  one  of  the  most  important  ones  that  ever  confronted 
the  people  of  this  state,  I  do  say,  that  these  resolutions,  taken 


558     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

altogether,  declare  a  truth  which  ought  to  be  proclaimed 
through  the  instrumentality  of  the  Constitution  of  New 
Hampshire. 

I  call,  Mr.  Secretary,  for  the  reading  of  the  resolutions. 

The  Secretary  read  as  follows: 

"Kesolution  offered  by  Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester. 

"Amend  Article  82  by  adding  thereto  the  following: 

And,  further,  full  power  is  hereby  granted  to  the  said  General 
Court  to  enact  laws  to  prevent,  by  civil  and  criminal  process,  the 
operations  within  the  state  of  any  trust  or  corporation,  foreign  or 
domestic,  which  endeavors  to  raise  the  price  of  any  article  of  com- 
merce by  restraint  of  trade,  monopoly,  or  other  unfair  means;  to 
control  and  regulate  the  acts  of  all  corporations  doing  business 
within  the  state,  and  prevent  their  encroachments  upon  the  liberties 
of  the  people. 

"Besolution  offered  by  Mr.  Ledoux  of  Nashua. 
"Amend  Article  82  by  adding  thereto  the  following: 

The  General  Court  is  authorized  and  directed  to  pass  such  laws  as 
will  most  effectually  prevent  monopoly,  the  stifling  of  competition, 
the  artificial  raising  of  prices,  and  any  unfair  methods  of  trade;  to 
control  and  regulate  the  acts  of  all  corporations  doing  business 
within  this  state,  and  to  prevent  their  encroachments  upon  the  lib- 
erties of  the  people. 

Mr.  Chairman,  the  three  resolutions  to  which  I  have  re- 
ferred, and  which  have  been  read,  involve  the  same  funda- 
mental principle  and  may  well  be  considered  together. 

At  the  outset,  let  me  say,  it  is  no  answer  to  these  proposi- 
tions that  the  prices  demanded  now  for  the  necessities  of  life 
are  in  some  instances  less  than  in  former  times.  If  by  rea- 
son of  improvements  in  machinery  and  in  agricultural  imple- 
ments, the  necessaries  of  life  can  be  produced  at  a  less  cost 
than  formerly,  it  is  the  right  of  the  people  to  receive  the  bene- 
fit of  such  improvements. 

Some  one  may  ask  why  a  declaration  of  a  natural  right 
should  be  incorporated  into  the  Constitution.  The  answer  is 
that  conditions  have  arisen  in  this  country  in  the  present  gen- 
eration which  violate  the  natural  and  essential  rights  of  the 
people,  and  there  is  the  same  propriety  and  the  same  duty 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  559 

upon  this  generation  of  declaring  against  present  oppression 
as  that  which  rested  upon  our  forefathers  when,  under  dif- 
ferent forms  of  oppression,  they  declared,  as  they  did  in  Arti- 
cle 1  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  that: — "All  men  are  born  equally 
free  and  independent,"  or,  as  declared  in  Article  2  of  the  Bill 
of  Rights  that: — "All  men  have  certain  natural,  essential  and 
inherent  rights,  among  which  are  the  enjoying  and  defending 
life  and  liberty,  acquiring,  possessing,  and  protecting  proper- 
ty," or,  as  declared  in  Article  82  of  the  Constitution,  that  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislature  to  encourage  commerce, 
trades,  and  manufactures,  or,  as  in  Article  10  of  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  that: — "The  doctrine  of  non-resistance  against  arbi- 
trary power  and  oppression  is  absurd,  slavish  and  destructive 
of  the  good  and  happiness  of  mankind." 

Now,  then,  we  have  what  we  call  jurisdictional  lines  be- 
tween the  governments,  lines  which  separate  the  powers  of 
the  state  governments  from  those  of  the  federal  government, 
and  which  exclude  the  states  from  the  control  of  some  things 
and  the  federal  government  from  the  control  of,  or  interfer- 
ence with  others,  and  which  leave  some  things  to  be  dealt 
with  and  regulated  by  the  federal  and  state  governments  con- 
currently. It  is,  therefore,  a  question  whether  the  remedy 
for  the  evils  we  are  considering,  lies  with  the  federal  govern- 
ment, or  the  state  governments,  or  in  part  with  each.  By 
making  this  declaration  in  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state 
as  a  concrete  proposition  on  which  the  people  of  New  Hamp- 
shire insist,  we  help  ourselves  by  helping  others  situated  as 
we  are  in  respect  to  these  great  industrial  questions;  we  help 
other  states;  we  help  our  senators  and  our  representatives. 
The  people  of  other  sections  of  our  country  cannot  come  to 
New  Hampshire  and  go  from  house  to  house  to  see  what  the 
people  desire,  and  the  congressmen  of  the  country  cannot  read 
all  our  newspapers  to  get  the  consensus  of  opinion  with  ref- 
erence to  this  matter,  but  they  may  well  look  to  the  constitu- 
tion of  the  state  to  see  whether  New  Hampshire  insists  that 
there  shall  be  free,  fair,  and  open  competition  in  the  trades 
and  industries. 

And  so  far  as  the  will  of  New  Hampshire  weighs, 
we  help  Congress,  which  must  grapple  with  this  ques- 
tion; and  so  far  as  the  will  of  New  Hampshire  weighs,  we 
help  the  man  who  at  this  moment  is  presiding  over  the  des- 


560     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

tinies  of  this  great  nation,  and  who,  with  supreme  honesty 
and  superb  courage,  has  declared  that  so  far  as  it  in  his  pow- 
er lies,  the  people  shall  be  protected  against  the  dominating 
encroachments  of  these  great  trust  combinations  and  to  the 
same  extent — because  this  is  non-political — such  a  declara- 
tion in  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire  will  help  to  sus- 
tain and  guide  any  future  President  of  the  United  States  to 
whatever  political  party  he  may  belong. 

Let  a  concrete  expression  like  this  be  made  as  the  essential 
and  imperative  demand  of  New  Hampshire  through  a  Consti- 
tutional Convention,  and  let  it  be  ratified  by  the  people  of 
New  Hampshire,  and  it  will  become  a  barrier  against  which 
all  must  throw  themselves,  who  propose  to  organize  trusts  for 
the  purpose  of  controlling  all  commodities  in  one  line;  a  bar- 
rier which  they  must  scale  in  order  to  entrench  themselves 
here  and  deprive  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  of  their 
rights. 

For  another  reason  I  say  this.  A  very  distinguished  law- 
yer who  represents  many  of  the  great  trust  interests  of  New 
York,  Mr.  Auerbach,  has  recently  written  a  very  elaborate  arti- 
cle which  appears  in  the  current  number  of  the  North  Ameri- 
can Eeview,  in  which  he  maintains  that  all  power  of  the 
states  to  regulate  or  deal  with  business  transactions  relating 
to  commodities  coming  from  other  states  may  be  wrested  from 
the  state  governments  by  an  act  of  Congress  authorizing  the 
organization  of  corporations,  to  transact  interstate  business 
and  deal  with  interstate  commerce.  He  bases  his  argument 
upon  a  noted  decision  of  the  Supreme  Court,  which  many  of 
you  know  about, — the  United  States  Bank  case, — in  which 
the  doctrine  is  held  that  the  federal  government  may  main- 
tain United  States  banks.  He  argues,  in  effect,  if  that  is  so, 
that  Congress  may  well,  under  the  power  conferred  by  the 
states,  establish  corporations  for  the  transaction  of  interstate 
business  and  that  then  the  whole  subject  will  be  beyond  the 
control  of  the  states  and  in  the  hands  of  the  federal  govern- 
ment. 

Mr.  Chairman,  under  our  system  of  government,  all  rights 
not  expressly  conferred  upon  the  federal  government  were 
reserved  to  the  states;  and  I  trust  the  doctrine  will  never  be 
established  that  all  phases  of  the  subject  and  all  questions  as 
to  the  manner  of  dealing  with  commodities  produced  by  the 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  561 

various  states — the  oil,  the  coal,  and  all  the  products  which 
become  the  subject  of  interstate  commerce,  are  wholly  and 
exclusively  within  the  power  and  control  of  the  federal  gov- 
ernment. 

For  this  reason  I  say  it  is  the  imperative  duty  of  New 
Hampshire  to  declare  now  that  she  insists,  so  far  as  it  is  in 
her  power  to  insist,  that  the  trades  and  industries  shall  be 
open,  and  free,  and  subject,  certainly,  to  incidental  control 
by  the  state. 

The  declarations  proposed  as  amendments  to  the  consti- 
tution relate  to  commerce,  and  commerce  is  expressly  made 
a  subject  of  protection  by  Article  82  which  I  have  read,  and 
present  conditions — present  oppressions,  demand  that  we 
should  more  distinctly  declare  in  favor  of  free  competition 
and  against  monopolies  in  respect  to  the  industries  and  the 
commerce  which  affect  our  state.  The  purpose  involved  in 
the  proposition,  which  I  urge,  is  disassociated  from  any  sup- 
posed attack  upon  any  particular  interests  here,  and,  so  far 
as  I  am  concerned,  it  will  be  discussed  upon  such  lines. 

The  resolutions  under  consideration  are  not  factional,  and 
this  is  not  a  factional  discussion.  It  involves  no  attack  upon 
our  great  manufacturing  interests  or  upon  our  great  rail- 
roads that  cross  the  state  from  sea  to  mountain.  We  com- 
mend our  local  enterprises  engaged  in  the  development  of 
the  resources  of  the  state,  and  it  is  believed  that  they  are 
equally  interested  with  others  in  maintaining  the  great  prin- 
ciple under  discussion. 

Nobody  complains  of  trusts  in  New  Hampshire.  It  is  of 
the  influence  of  outside  trusts  upon  New  Hampshire  inter- 
ests— the  control  of  commodities  which  come  into  the  mar- 
kets of  New  Hampshire  and  which  have  a  right  to  come  into 
the  markets  of  New  Hampshire,  that  we  complain.  A  rail- 
road system  limited  to  New  Hampshire  is  not  a  railroad 
trust;  but  the  proposition  to  put  into  one  combination  all 
the  railroads  of  the  country,  which  is  the  proposition  involved 
in  the  great  scheme  of  monopoly  now  going  on,  would  be  a 
railroad  trust,  and  I  imagine  no  gentleman  would  stand  up 
here  and  advocate  that  kind  of  combination. 

Now  I  wish  also  to  say  that  my  remarks  will  not  only  not 
be  factional,  but  will  have  no  reference  to  any  particular 
36 


562     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

cases  pending  in  the  courts  with  which  I  am  connected,  and 
my  official  relations  with  the  government  are  such,  if  I  may 
be  pardoned  for  referring  to  it,  that  propriety  requires  that  I 
should  speak  in  measured  terms  and  with  moderation. 

Moreover,  I  shall  speak  cautiously  for  I  am  fully  aware 
that  I  am  speaking  to  a  notable  body  of  four  hundred  sen- 
sible, discriminating,  and  hard-headed  New  Hampshire  men 
who  are  assembled  in  Constitutional  Convention  not  to  be 
moved  by  sentiment,  or  extravagant  speech,  but  to  fairly  con- 
sider and  boldly  proclaim,  some  of  the  great  principles  that 
underlie  a  beneficent  and  intelligent  civilization,  which  they 
are  bound  to  courageously  uphold. 

In  my  judgment,  the  question  whether  the  principle  in- 
volved in  these  resolutions  shall  be  adopted  and  sent  to  the 
people  as  a  proposition  to  be  ratified  and  incorporated  into 
the  constitution  of  the  state,  is,  by  far,  the  most  important 
question  to  come  before  this  Convention. 

That  no  great  trusts  exist  in  New  Hampshire  is  no  reason 
why  the  declarations  contained  in  the  resolutions  should  not 
be  adopted.  Every  man  who  raises  grain,  deals  in  grain,  or 
consumes  grain,  is  affected  by  the  trusts,  whether  they  are  in 
New  Hampshire,  in  New  York,  or  in  Chicago.  Every  man 
who  consumes  sugar,  or  deals  in  sugar,  is  likewise  interested. 
The  same  is  true  of  beef  and  of  pork.  Every  man  who  wears 
shoes,  deals  in  shoes,  or  makes  shoes,  is  interested.  The  great 
concerns  that  use  copper  in  connection  with  electric  lights 
and  the  telephone  are  interested.  The  great  railroads  that 
consume  coal  in  their  railway  works  and  in  their  locomotives 
are  interested.  It  is,  therefore,  no  answer  that  the  trusts  are 
largely  outside  the  state.  We  are  affected  by  them  wherever 
they  are.  The  Revolutionary  Tea  Party  was  not  in  New 
Hampshire,  it  was  in  Boston.  Citizens  were  not  shot  down 
by  British  soldiers  surrounding  the  Colonial  Assembly  at 
Exeter  in  New  Hampshire,  but  in  King  Street  in  Boston,  sur- 
rounding the  Colonial  Assembly  of  Massachusetts,  yet  New 
Hampshire's  interests  were  affected  and  it  was  their  general 
policy  to  uphold  the  cause  of  the  people  of  all  the  colonies. 
Human  slavery  did  not  exist  in  New  Hampshire,  yet  New 
Hampshire  declared  against  it.  Secession  was  not  in  New 
Hampshire,  yet  she  poured  forth  her  money  and  her  men  to 
maintain  the  Union  and  to  establish  Federal  authority,  and 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  563 

the  same  duty  is  upon  her  today  to  engage  in  a  peaceful  war 
against  the  wicked  and  criminal  monopoly  of  the  trades  and 
industries  of  the  country  which  affect  her  people  in  common 
with  the  people  of  all  the  states. 

The  commodities  to  which  I  have  referred  and  hundreds  of 
others  become  the  subject  of  commerce  between  the  people  of 
the  different  states,  including  New  Hampshire,  and  any  com- 
bination destroying  free,  open,  and  fair  competition  is  in  vio- 
lation of  the  rights  of  New  Hampshire  people.  The  princi- 
ple of  free,  open,  and  fair  competition  in  respect  to  subjects 
of  interstate  commerce  casts  its  protecting  lines  around  every 
community  and  into  every  home  in  New  Hampshire,  and  it 
is  a  protection  that  we  are  entitled  to  have. 

Here  is  an  essential  right  prostrated,  as  I  shall  show  you 
further  on;  the  independence  in  trade  and  free  competition 
is  so  far  gone  from  the  people  in  this  country  that  it  can  never 
be  restored  except  through  the  power  of  the  governments  of 
the  states  and  of  the  Federal  government.  No  man  can 
wrestle  with  these  great  combinations.  This  is  oppression 
that  falls  upon  all  the  people  alike,  and  it  is,  therefore,  the 
duty  of  the  government  of  the  state  and  of  the  Federal  gov- 
ernment to  take  the  initiative  and  restore  this  important  busi- 
ness principle  to  the  people.  The  essential  truth  which  has 
been  buried  under  an  avalanche  of  monopoly  and  oppression, 
should,  so  far  as  New  Hampshire  is  concerned,  be  here  resur- 
rected and  proclaimed  as  a  fundamental  principle.  It  is  no 
answer  that  the  legislature  may  have  the  power  now.  The 
question  of  legislative  power  under  the  constitutional  grants 
and  limitations,  is  at  least  a  debatable  one,  and  the  fact  that 
it  is  debatable,  is  fatal  to  vigorous  and  resolute  action.  The 
question  of  power  should  be  distinctly  and  emphatically  put 
above  all  questions  of  debate  or  cavil.  It  is,  therefore,  no 
answer,  that  the  legislature  may  have  the  power.  Fair  com- 
petition, as  has  been  said,  is  an  essential  principle  in  business 
which  has  been  buried  beneath  an  avalanche  of  corporate 
trust  combinations — so  far  buried  that  business  cannot  re- 
store it,  and  it  should  be  resurrected  by  a  Constitutional  Con- 
vention and  the  people  should  ratify  this  principle.  This 
principle  should  be  asserted  in  a  concrete  form  so  that  the 
legislature  of  this  state,  and  the  legislature  of  every  other 
state,  will  understand  that  it  is  a  principle  upon  which  New 
Hampshire  insists. 


564    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Chairman,  when  our  system  of  government  was  organ- 
ized, our  forefathers  repudiated  what  was  called  the  law  of 
primogeniture,  a  rule  of  law  under  whose  operation  estates  in 
England  descended  from  eldest  son  to  eldest  son  and  were 
carried  along  in  that  way;  and  they  adopted  the  idea  that 
future  interests  must  vest  within  a  life,  or  lives  in  being  and 
twenty-one  years.  The  reason  for  this,  as  taught  by  our  fore- 
fathers, was  that  property  should  not  be  locked  up,  and  that, 
under  these  rules,  no  great  estates  would  be  perpetuated  until 
they  should  assume  proportions  which  would  destroy  the  equi- 
librium of  the  body  politic.  Now,  it  still  remains  that  these 
rules  in  respect  to  individual  ownership  of  estates  exist,  and 
that  we  insist  emphatically  upon  these  principles  as  a  safe- 
guard. 

Conditions,  however,  arose  which  made  it  necessary,  in  or- 
der to  develop  the  great  resources  in  this  country  that  corpor- 
ations should  be  organized,  that  money  should  be  aggregated. 

Now,  I  am  not  here  in  any  unfriendly  spirit  towards  cor- 
porations because  of  the  fact  that  they  are  corporations. 
Legitimate  corporate  enterprises  are  necessary  to  our  civiliza- 
tion; they  are  necessary  to  the  development  of  our  country 
and  they  should  be  upheld  and  encouraged  in  all  reasonable 
ways. 

Disregarding  the  principle  involved  in  the  rule  to  which  I 
have  referred  in  respect  to  personal  ownership  of  estates,  our 
legislatures  early  adopted  the  policy  of  creating  corporations 
without  any  limitation  as  to  life  or  time  of  existence,  except 
to  reserve  to  the  governments  the  right  to  alter  and  amend 
charters  as  justice  might  require  in  order  that  the  interests 
of  the  public  should  be  protected.  The  effect  of  such  a 
policy,  of  course,  was  to  allow,  not  for  a  life,  or  lives  in  being, 
and  twenty-one  years,  but  forever,  the  perpetuation  of  great 
aggregations  of  wealth  through  corporate  organizations,  sub- 
ject only  to  the  limitation  or  the  qualification  in  respect  to 
the  public  right  to  which  I  have  referred  as  involved  in  the 
right  to  alter  and  amend  the  charters  or  organizations. 

Now,  it  followed,  very  soon,  that  corporations,  disregarding 
the  policy  of  the  government  in  respect  to  the  statutory  reser- 
vation of  the  power  to  alter  and  amend  in  the  interests  of  the 
public,  and  for  the  purpose  of  making  the  statutory  reser- 
vation for  purposes  of  regulation,  difficult  of  enforcement,  be- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  565 

gan  to  tie  themselves  up  with  other  corporations — not  at  first 
for  the  purpose  of  controlling  everything  in  a  given  line,  but 
for  the  purpose  which  I  have  stated.  This  was  first  done  by 
tying  up  for  twenty  years,  then  for  ninety-nine  years,  and 
now,  in  order  to  deprive  the  government  of  its  right  to  pro- 
tect the  people  under  its  reserved  power,  and  to  make  trust 
domination  more  absolute,  they  have  recently  adopted  the 
idea  of  associating  themselves  together  and  tying  themselves 
up  for  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  years.  There  is  an 
organization  of  interests  in  New  York,  aggregating  $200,000,- 
000,  where  four  or  five  corporations  entered  into  a  trust  and 
tied  themselves  up  for  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  years 
with  agreements  to  pay  themselves  seven  per  cent.  The  divi- 
dends are  to  be  earned  from  the  public.  That  is  the  way 
they  deal  with  the  reserved  public  right! 

Under  the  doctrine  of  eminent  domain,  corporations  get 
the  right  to  do  public  business, — run  over  land  and  through 
houses  in  the  prosecution  of  the  public  right,  and  then  to  ren- 
der inoperative  and  to  destroy  the  rights  of  the  public, — the 
control  and  the  power  of  the  government  in  the  interests  of 
the  public, — they  proceed  to  mix  themselves  up  with  guaran- 
ties to  themselves  for  nine  hundred  and  ninety-nine  years. 
That  is  a  fearful  exercise  of  a  public  function!  There  is  no 
thought  of  the  public  good,  or  of  the  public  right,  except  to 
confuse,  impair,  or  destroy  them. 

These  schemes  are  entirely  commercial.  There  is  not  only 
no  thought  of  the  public  good  or  the  public  right,  but  no  re- 
spect for  the  government,  and  no  thought  of  the  government, 
except  to  break  down  and  render  inoperative  the  reservations 
which  it  has  made  in  the  interests  of  the  public. 

A  very  distinguished  lawyer  and  accomplished  gentleman, 
Mr.  Eose,  President  of  the  American  Bar  Association,  recently 
said  in  an  address  before  that  body,  that: 

We  have  at  present  more  than  four  thousand  monopolies,  to  say 
nothing  of  price  and  rate-fixing  and  profit-sharing  pools,  with  buy- 
ing and  selling  agencies,  exercising  functions  similar  to  those  of  the 
trusts,  all  organized  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  prices  arbitrarily. 

Think  of  that!  Four  thousand  great  trusts,  embrac- 
ing all  of  the  more  important  industries  of  this  country 
and  nearly  all  of  the  necessaries  of  life, — many  diverse  inter- 


566     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ests  aggregated  for  the  purpose  of  fixing  prices  arbitrarily 
and  without  any  regard  to  the  public  right  or  the  public  in- 
terests! Mr.  Kose,  continuing,  says: 

Without  the  advantage  of  fixing  prices  in  this  manner,  there 
would  be  no  motive  for  the  combination  of  many  diverse  interests 
in  one.  In  most  cases,  neither  the  purpose  nor  the  power  is  denied; 
on  the  contrary,  they  are  proclaimed  for  the  object  of  raising  the 
price  of  corporate  securities. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  under  modern  conditions,  we  must 
have  large  aggregations  of  capital.  And  if  these  combina- 
tions were  to  develop  the  resources  of  the  earth,  well  and 
good;  but  the  prevailing  scheme  is  to  combine  the  various 
developed  industries  and  to  destroy  competition  between 
them,  not  to  create  a  combination  to  enter  upon  some  new 
scheme,  or  to  develop  some  new  resource  or  industry.  The 
scheme  is  to  take  hold  of  developed  industries  and  to  put 
them  under  one  interest  and  one  management,  that  they  may 
control  the  price,  both  to  the  producer  and  the  consumer. 
This  is  wrong.  It  offends  a  natural  right.  It  offends  a 
wholesome  law  of  trade.  No  people  will  long  rest  peaceably 
under  a  commercial  and  industrial  policy  which  forces  busi- 
ness from  its  natural  competitive  channels,  and  especially  so, 
when  the  policy  is  justified  only  by  the  idea  that  a  fe\v  can  do 
all  the  business  and  furnish  all  the  necessaries  of  life  to  the 
many  at  a  less  price  than  they  can  do  it  themselves.  It  is 
natural  for  men  to  do  business,  and  no  community  would  put 
all  its  business  into  one  man's  hands,  allowing  him  to  do  all 
of  it,  and  rest  peaceably,  because  he  claims  that  he  can  do  it 
cheaper  than  they  can  do  it  themselves. 

Such  greed  for  power  and  for  commercial  control  threatens 
trade,  threatens  civilization,  threatens  the  very  existence  of 
government.  The  remedy  is  largely  with  the  states  and  re- 
sides largely  in  a  bold  expression  of  public  sentiment. 

As  I  have  said,  the  states  reserved  to  themselves  all  powers 
to  govern  and  regulate  business  and  to  protect  the  people 
which  were  not  conferred  upon  the  general  government. 
Contracts  in  restraint  of  trade  have  for  centuries  and  every- 
where been  held  illegal — illegal  both  under  federal  and  state 
law,  and  under  the  law  of  all  civilized  nations. 

This  idea  is  the  basis  of  the  Sherman  Act.  The  Sherman 
Act  was  directed  especially  against  contracts  in  restraint  of 
trade. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  567 

Now  my  assertion  is,  that  combinations — and  here  is  the 
point — combinations  in  restraint  of  trade  are  in  spirit  and  in 
effect  the  same  as  contracts  in  restraint  of  trade,  and  it  re- 
quires no  stretch  of  that  doctrine  to  declare  combinations  for 
such  purpose  against  public  policy  and  illegal.  Let  me  ask 
you  if  the  effect  is  not  the  same — if  the  contract  of  two  men 
in  restraint  of  trade  is  illegal  as  against  public  policy,  upon 
the  same  vital  principle,  is  not  a  combination  of  corporations, 
entered  into  for  the  same  purpose,  as  much  against  public 
policy  and  may  not  a  situation  created  by  such  a  .combination 
of  corporations  well  be  declared,  either  by  federal  or  state  law, 
to  be  against  public  policy  and  one  which  will  not  be  upheld? 

I  am  one  of  those  who  believe  that  every  government  has 
the  inherent  power  of  self-preservation — and  the  inherent 
power  of  protecting  its  people,  and  I  believe  the  states  may 
deal  directly  with  some  phases  of  this  subject. 

It  has  always  been  said  that  we  will  not  enforce  contracts 
in  restraint  of  trade.  It  may  well  be  said,  that  we  will  for- 
bid combinations  in  restraint  of  trade.  The  general  govern- 
ment may  regulate  interstate  commerce.  It  has  always  acted 
upon  the  idea  that  it  would  not  enforce  contracts  in  restraint 
of  trade.  It  may,  as  well,  forbid  combinations  in  restraint  of 
interstate  trade  and  declare  that  it  will  not  tolerate  combi- 
nations in  restraint  of  free  competition  in  interstate  com- 
merce. 

In  more  than  one  great  crisis,  which  has  directed  the  atten- 
tion of  our  people  to  some  particular  clause  in  the  framework 
of  our  general  government, — to  some  particular  phrase  in  the 
fundamental  law,  we  have  had  occasion  to  marvel  at  the  wis- 
dom and  the  forethought  of  those  who  framed  our  consti- 
tution. It  is  said  that  both  Gladstone  and  Bismarck — the 
two  most  noted  modern  European  statesmen — have  declared 
that  in  their  judgment  the  men  who  assembled  to  work  out  a 
system  of  government  in  this  country — I  think  they  were  re- 
ferring to  the  constitution — were  the  greatest  set  of  men  ever 
assembled  for  such  a  purpose  since  the  world  began. 

The  framers  of  the  Federal  government  put  into  the  consti- 
tution the  provision  that  Congress  shall  have  power  to  regu- 
late commerce  with  foreign  nations,  and  among  the  several 
states.  Mark  the  word!  Power  to  "regulate"  commerce.  Not 
power  to  grant  free  and  unbridled  immunity,  not  to  guarantee 


568    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

an  unrestrained  right  to  trade,  but  to  "regulate";  not  to  pro- 
tect combinations  to  break  down  commerce,  but  to  "regulate" 
the  manner  in  which  the  commerce  shall  be  carried  on.  It  is 
equivalent  to  saying  that  Congress  may  define  the  manner  in 
which  interstate  business  shall  be  conducted.  Very  likely 
the  leading  idea  was  to  clothe  the  general  government  with 
power  to  protect  interstate  commerce  from  unreasonable 
restrictions  by  the  states.  But  it  is  manifest  that  the  framers 
reflected,  and  having  reflected,  that  they  selected  the  right 
word,  to  the  end  that  the  manner  of  conducting  interstate 
commerce  might  be  regulated,  so  that  the  people  of  the  states 
should  not  be  imposed  upon  or  oppressed  through  the  instru- 
mentality of  a  trade  or  commerce  over  which  the  general 
government  was  to  assume  jurisdiction  and  control.  If,  be- 
cause they  have  conferred  it,  the  states  have  not  full  power  to 
regulate  interstate  trade  and  protect  the  people,  where  does 
the  power  to  adequately  regulate  reside,  unless  with  the  gen- 
eral government?  Is  the  power  of  regulation,  the  power  of 
protection,  lost  between  the  two? 

Now  clearly,  under  this  provision, — this  power  to  regulate 
— Congress  may  well  declare  against  combinations  and  con- 
spiracies affecting  interstate  commerce,  and  say,  that  combi- 
nations to  create  a  monopoly  and  to  destroy  competition  shall 
not  do  business  outside  of  the  state  where  they  are  created. 
That  is  to  say,  that  while  it  lies  with  the  states  to  alter, 
abridge,  and  limit  the  corporations  which  they  have  created, 
and  to  confine  them  to  a  legitimate  prosecution  of  the  enter- 
prise for  which  they  are  created,  if  they  fail  to  do  it,  and  if 
the  great  corporations  of  New  Jersey,  and  other  states  I  might 
name,  assume  to  arbitrarily  destroy  competition  and  to 
control  the  necessaries  of  life  and  to  furnish  the  people  of 
other  states  with  commodities  at  their  own  prices  arbitrarily 
fixed,  the  Federal  government  under  this  provision  of  the 
constitution,  may  declare,  through  an  act  of  Congress,  that 
interstate  commerce  shall  not  be  conducted  in  that  way;  that 
it  amounts  to  a  conspiracy  against  the  rights  of  the  people. 

Congress  may  well  declare  officials  of  corporations  conspir- 
ing for  such  a  purpose  and  doing  business  outside  the  state, 
to  be  guilty  of  conspiracy  against  the  people,  and  that  upon 
proper  proceedings,  that  they  may  be  dealt  with  in  the  courts. 

The  trust  combinations  are  running  wild.     They  seem  to 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  569 

recognize  no  law,  save  the  law  of  selfishness.  They  are  all, 
in  fact,  exercising  a  public  function,  because  they  are,  in  fact, 
created  by  legislative  enactment.  The  oppression  is'upon  all 
the  people.  The  people  must  get  their  redress  through  gov- 
ernment, state  or  federal.  No  individual,  no  business  con- 
cern is  strong  enough  to  grapple  with  this  situation. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  was  said  more  than  two  hundred 
and  fifty  years  ago  by  Lord  Chief  Justice  Hale  that  when  pri- 
vate property — he  was  talking  about  private  property — when 
private  property  is  affected  with  a  public  interest,  it  is  subject 
to  government  control  so  as  to  prevent  imposition  and  extor- 
tion. This  rule  still  more  clearly  holds  good  in  respect  to 
corporate  rights,  rights  created  by  law.  Upon  the  principle, 
stated  by  Lord  Chief  Justice  Hale,  power  to  justly  regulate 
and  control  all  corporations  and  to  protect  the  public,  unques- 
tionably resides  in  the  state  and  federal  governments.  Every 
corporation  doing  business  is  affected  and  qualified  by  the 
public  right  because  they  are  created  by  the  public  through 
law.  They  are  therefore  exercising  a  quasi-public  function 
and  may,  and  should,  be  regulated  by  the  public  through  law. 

Corporate  rights  are  not  natural  or  inherent  rights.  They 
are  rights  founded  upon  law  and  qualified  by  law.  Every 
property  right  created  by  law  is  a  qualified  right,  and  may  be 
so  regulated  that  it  shall  not  impose  upon  the  public. 

I  shall  not  read  much  law.  I  shall  only  refer  to  three  or 
four  decisions  of  the  Supreme  Court  to  show  the  power  of 
governments  to  protect  the  public  right,  residing  in  corpora- 
tions created  by  law  and  exercising  a  quasi-public  franchise. 
The  proposition  of  Lord  Chief  Justice  Hale,  uttered  two  hun- 
dred and  fifty  years  ago  or  more,  has  been  approved  by  the 
Supreme  Court  of  the  United  States  in  a  somewhat  recent 
case.  (Munn  v.  Illinois,  94  U.  S.  113.)  After  stating  that 
doctrine,  the  court  proceeds  to  say  at  page  125: 

Under  these  powers  [inherent  in  every  sovereignty]  the  govern- 
ment regulates  the  conduct  of  its  citizens  one  toward  another,  and 
the  manner  in  which  each  shall  use  his  own  property,  when  such  reg- 
ulation becomes  necessary  for  the  public  good.  In  their  exercise  it 
has  been  customary  in  England  from  time  immemorial,  and  in  this 
country  from  its  first  colonization,  to  regulate  ferries,  common  car- 
riers, hackmen,  bakers,  millers,  wharfingers,  innkeepers,  etc.,  and  in 
so  doing  to  fix  a  maximum  of  charge  to  be  made  for  services  ren- 


570    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

dered,  accommodations  furnished,  and  articles  sold.  To  this  day 
statutes  are  to  be  found  in  many  of  the  states  upon  some  or  all  of 
these  subjects,  and  we  think  it  has  never  yet  been  successfully  con- 
tended that  such  legislation  came  within  any  of  the  constitutional 
prohibitions  against  interference  with  private  property. 

In  another  and  a  more  recent  case,  in  the  Supreme  Court, 
that  of  Waters-Pierce  Oil  Co.  v.  Texas  (177  U.  S.  43),  it  is 
said: 

A  corporation  is  a  creature  of  the  law  and  none  of  its  powers  are 
original.  They  are  precisely  what  the  incorporating  act  has  made 
them  and  can  only  be  exerted  in  the  manner  which  that  act  author- 
izes. In  other  words,  the  state  prescribes  the  purposes  of  a  corpora- 
tion and  the  means  of  executing  those  purposes.  Purposes  and 
means  are  within  the  state's  control.  This  is  true  as  to  domestic 
corporations.  It  has  even  a  broader  application  to  foreign  corpora- 
tions. 

In  another  case  (Company  v.  Needles,  113  U.  S.  580)  the 
Supreme  Court  says  the  right  of  a  plaintiff  to  exist  as  a  cor- 
poration, and  its  authority  in  that  capacity  to  conduct  the 
particular  business  for  which  it  is  created,  are  granted  sub- 
ject to  the  condition  that  the  privileges  and  franchises  con- 
ferred shall  not  be  abused  and  that  when  abused  or  mis- 
employed, may  be  withdrawn  or  reclaimed  by  the  state  in  such 
way  and  by  such  means  of  procedure  as  are  consistent  with 
law. 

Mr.  Chief  Justice  Fuller,  speaking  for  the  Supreme  Court, 
has  recently  said: 

The  right  to  contract  is  not  absolute  but  may  be  subjected  to" the 
restraints  demanded  by  the  safety  and  welfare  of  the  state.  (Rail- 
way v.  Paul,  173  U.  S.  404,  409.) 

Chief  Justice  Shaw  ,the  greatest  judge,  perhaps,  that  ever 
lived  in  this  country,  save  Marshall  alone,  many  years  ago 
laid  down  this  principle: 

Rights  of  property,  like  all  other  social  and  conventional  rights, 
are  subject  to  such  reasonable  limitations  in  their  enjoyment,  as 
shall  prevent  them  from  being  injurious,  and  to  such  reasonable 
restraints  and  regulations  established  by  law,  as  the  legislature,  un- 
der the  governing  and  controlling  power  vested  in  them  by  the  con- 
stitution, may  think  necessary  and  expedient. 

This  doctrine  was  referred  to  and  approved  by  the  Supreme 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  571 

Court  of  the  United  States  in  Holden  v.  Hardy,  reported  in 
169  U.  S.  366,  392. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  the  dominant  idea  in  the  country  is 
that  commercial  equilibrium  shall  be  restored.  No  one  would 
destroy  corporations  or  deal  unjustly  with  corporate  prop- 
erty. No  one  would  advocate  the  absolute  destruction  of 
trusts.  It  is  only  proper  regulation  and  proper  conduct  that 
the  interests  of  the  public  require.  Combinations  may  be 
necessary,  and  are  necessary,  for  legitimate  purposes,  but  they 
must  not  overthrow  competition.  No  one  objects  to  a  great 
corporation  whose  purpose  it  is  to  develop  a  line  of  industries. 
The  objection  is  to  the  control  of  all  industries  in  a  given  line 
and  the  arbitrary  fixing  of  prices. 

Now,  in  view  of  the  decisions  I  have  read,  think  for  a  mo- 
ment of  the  steel  trust,  under  whose  domination,  American 
iron  and  steel  are  so  absolutely  and  arbitrarily  controlled  and 
dominated  that  iron  and  steel  can  be  bought  by  English  rail- 
roads, delivered  at  Liverpool,  cheaper  than  American  rail- 
roads can  buy  it  on  the  cars  at  the  mines  or  mills.  Think  of 
the  beef  trust  and  of  the  leather  trust  and  the  flour  combi- 
nation! 

I  want  your  attention  for  a  moment  to  the  beef  trust.  To- 
day the  prices  of  beef  are  such  as  to  be  practically  prohibitive, 
with  probably  ninety  per  cent  of  the  American  people.  No 
laboring  man,  no  artisan,  no  ordinary  man  in  the  professions 
can  afford  the  red  meats,  even  once  a  day,  if  he  has  anything 
of  a  family. 

You  will  pardon  me  if  I  speak  of  a  personal  experience. 
Yesterday,  for  my  lunch,  I  went  to  one  of  the  Boston  hotels, 
and  it  was  not  one  of  the  most  expensive  ones  either.  I  had 
two  lamb  chops.  They  were  not  larger  than  your  thumb.  I 
had  boiled  eggs  and  dry  toast.  When  the  waiter  brought  me 
the  check,  there  was  an  item  of  two  chops,  seventy  cents.  I 
said,  "Waiter,  show  me  a  printed  bill  of  fare  with  two  chops 
charged  at  seventy  cents."  I  recalled  that  chops  a  few  years 
ago  at  this  season  were  forty  cents.  The  waiter  came  back 
with  a  bill  of  fare  and  there  was  the  price,  two  lamb  chops, 
seventy  cents.  I  said,  "What  does  this  mean?  I  want  you 
to  go  to  the  management  and  tell  them  I  want  to  know  why 
two  chops  cost  seventy  cents."  The  waiter  went  out  and 
coming  back,  gave  his  answer,  "It  is  the  trusts.  Meats  are 
higher  than  they  used  to  be." 


572    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

I  do  not  refer  to  this  seriously  as  showing  the  price  of  meats 
but  as  showing  the  iniquity  of  the  pernicious  principle  of 
monopoly.  If  it  begins  at  the  head  it  is  used  to  cheat  the 
whole  length  of  the  line  from  there  to  the  consumer. 

Today  meats  of  all  kinds  cost  the  consumer  nearly  double 
what  they  did  ten  years  ago.  Now,  gentlemen,  the  trouble  is 
not  that  there  are  not  as  many  cattle  raised  in  the  country  as 
there  were  ten  years  ago,  but  it  is  because  the  prices  are  arbi- 
trarily controlled.  And  they  are  not  only  arbitrarily  con- 
trolled as  against  the  consumer  but  as  against  the  producer, 
the  raiser  of  the  cattle  as  well.  Today,  the  cattle  sheds  of 
Chicago  are  overrun  and  overflowing  with  live  cattle  waiting 
to  be  slaughtered,  and  yet  beef  steaks  cost  the  consumer  in 
this  city,  as  I  was  informed  last  night  at  the  Eagle  Hotel, 
from  thirty  to  thirty-four  cents  a  pound.  That  is  because 
the  beef  production  of  this  country  is  run  through  a  trust,  a 
combination  that  arbitrarily  fixes  and  controls  the  price  and 
drives  ninety  per  cent  of  the  people  of  this  country  from  red 
meats  to  the  coarser  meats,  and  to  fish. 

How  long,  let  me  ask  you,  will  a  government,  founded  upon 
the  will  of  a  great  people,  rest  securely  under  such  conditions 
as  these? 

Think  of  the  Standard  Oil  Company.  The  last  annual 
dividends  on  a  capital  of  one  hundred  millions  were  forty-five 
million  dollars — almost  one-half  as  much  as  the  capital  stock. 
The  total  dividends  on  a  capital  of  one  hundred  millions  in 
six  years  are  two  hundred  and  thirty-seven  million  dollars. 
Now  there  is  oil  enough,  and  there  is  nothing  in  the  condi- 
tions of  today  that  interferes  with  the  production  of  oil,  or 
that  increases  the  cost,  but  something  has  happened  in  the 
anthracite  coal  fields  which  makes  it  necessary  to  burn  oil  in 
the  steamships  driven  across  the  ocean,  and  for  people  to  burn 
oil  in  their  little  oil  stoves  which  they  are  obliged  to  use  in 
the  place  of  coal  stoves  to  keep  themselves  and  their  children 
from  freezing,  and  the  same  lack  of  coal  has  made  it  neces- 
sary for  the  railroads,  or  some  of  them,  to  use  oil  in  operating 
and  driving  their  steam  locomotives  across  the  country,  and 
in  view  of  this  necessity  and  through  the  might  of  absolute 
domination,  the  Standard  Oil  Company  puts  an  additional 
twister  on  the  nose  of  the  American  people  and  adds  a  cent 
a  gallon  to  the  price  of  oil,  giving  themselves  in  return  a 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  573 

swoop  of  eight  millions  a  year  in  addition  to  their  forty-five 
millions — in  other  words,  the  forty-five  million  dollar  divi- 
dends are  increased  by  eight  million  dollars  by  reason  of  the 
necessity  caused  by  the  coal  strike.  Did  the  Maker  of  the 
universe,  who  distributed  oil  through  this  earth  to  light  and 
warm  the  people,  intend  that  one  concern  should  monopolize 
and  control  it,  or  so  use  it,  as  to  extort  unreasonable  and  un- 
just profits  from  the  people?  Never!  Was  it  ever  intended 
by  any  legislature  that  any  one  man,  or  any  concern  under 
the  domination  of  any  one  man,  under  a  public  franchise, — 
under  a  right  that  he  gets  from  the  government, — should 
get  control  of  such  a  necessary  of  life,  and  so  operate  and 
control  it  that  it  may  divide  forty-five  million  dollars  a  year, 
extorted  from  the  people?  Never! 

Must  this  condition  go  on  eternally?  If  so,  what  will  be 
the  end?  Trusts  dividing,  on  a  capital  of  a  hundred  millions, 
fifty  million  dollars  or  more  a  year  profits,  realized  from  an 
arbitrary  grasp  upon  a  leading  necessary  of  life  which  must 
distribute  itself  among  all  the  people!  It  need  not  neces- 
sarily go  on.  The  public  right  may  be  protected.  Under  the 
power  of  legislative  supervision  and  control  railroads,  as  is 
well  known,  are  restricted  in  their  freight  tariff  rates  and  are 
compelled  to  sell  mileage  in  many  of  the  states  at  two  cents  a 
mile  and  in  others  for  less.  Upon  the  same  principle,  corpor- 
ations dealing  in  the  necessaries  of  life,  may  be  restricted  in 
their  earnings  and  their  dividends.  The  legislatures  of  the 
states  of  their  creation  may  unquestionably  restrict  them,  and 
Congress  may  doubtless  restrict  such  as  are  engaged  in  inter- 
state business.  There  is  no  reason  why  the  Standard  Oil  Co., 
operating  under  law, — under  a  franchise,  should  be  protected 
in  dividing  fifty  million  dollars  a  year,  arbitrarily  extorted 
from  the  public  upon  a  leading  necessary  of  life. 

It  is  a  harm  to  the  public.  It  is  a  greater  harm,  yes,  it  is 
indeed  a  danger  to  the  title  of  the  combination  which  is  con- 
trolling the  product  and  reaping  such  vast  and  enriching 
harvests. 

Such  a  condition  disturbs  the  equilibrium  of  affairs  among 
men.  It  becomes  a  disturbing  element  among  people  living 
under  the  same  government.  In  time,  such  conditions,  unless 
checked,  will  result  in  numberless,  colossal  aggregations  of 
billions  upon  billions  and  again  billions  and  billions  upon 


574    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

billions,  which  will  surely  disturb  the  equilibrium  of  the  gov- 
ernments themselves,  state  and  federal  as  well. 

Look  at  matches!  Look  at  sugar!  At  one  time  the  sugar 
trust  controlled  ninety  per  cent  of  the  sugar  consumed  in  this 
country:  It  now  controls  more  than  fifty  per  cent,  sufficient 
to  dominate  the  situation,  and  its  policy  is,  as  everybody 
knows,  as  soon  as  a  concern  starts  up  for  the  purpose  of  com- 
peting with  them,  to  buy  them  out,  and  pay  them  in  stock,  and 
the  consumers  of  sugar,  in  effect,  pay  for  the  additional  stock 
and  pay  the  dividends.  That  this  is  their  standing  policy  is 
an  unquestionable  fact. 

In  the  legislatures  of  some  states,  there  has  been  passed 
what  is  called  a  blanket  corporation  act,  under  which  people 
associate  themselves  together  on  paper,  without  much  regard 
to  the  public  right,  and  under  cover  of  that  they  endeavor  to 
get  control  of  a  given  situation  and  of  competition  in  respect 
to  it.  Did  any  legislature  ever  intend  that  one  concern 
should  control  and  dominate  all  the  sugar?  Never!  Did 
any  legislature  ever  intend  to  incorporate  a  concern  to  de- 
stroy all  other  enterprises  in  the  same  line?  Never!  It  was 
no  more  intended  that  one  concern  should  control  sugar,  than 
it  was  intended  that  one  concern  should  own  and  control  the 
earth  and  turn  all  others  off. 

Now,  it  is  clear  enough  that  it  is  within  the  power  of  the 
states,  if  they  see  fit,  to  limit  and  qualify  the  business  of  cor- 
porations of  their  creation,  and  if  they  fail  to  do  it,  that  under 
the  inter-state  commerce  provision  of  the  constitution,  they 
may  be  regulated  by  the  general  government. 

Now,  who  is  the  conservative  man?  Who  is  the  man  up- 
holding vested  rights?  Is  it  the  man  who  stands  up  and  de- 
mands that  the  people  shall  have  a  fair  deal  and  that  business 
shall  have  a  fair  chance,  or  is  it  the  man  who  proposes  to  wrest 
business  from  the  public  and  from  its  natural  channels  and 
put  it  into  the  monopoly  of  a  few?  I  say  it  is  the  former. 
The  men  who  assume  to  dominate  all  of  the  commodities  in 
one  line,  impair  or  at  least  hazard  their  own  title.  Those  who 
propose  to  dominate  arbitrarily  business  which  concerns  the 
public  generally,  make  their  own  title  defective  by  offending 
the  just  sensibilities  of  a  tolerant  people, — a  people  which 
may  not  always  remain  tolerant. 

As  I  have  said,  this  is  not  a  party  question.     No  one  party 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  575 

can  regulate  it,  but  when  the  people  make  up  their  minds  in 
earnest  to  deal  with  trusts  through  the  government,  state  or 
federal,  it  will  be  a  fair  deal  but  a  drastic  one. 

The  right  to  trade  and  do  business  is  a  natural  right  and 
history  shows  that  people  have  always  been  sensitive  to 
encroachments  upon  their  natural  and  inherent  rights.  Why 
should  a  man  want  to  control  all  the  sugar  or  all  the  coal  or 
all  the  oil? 

I  am  reminded  here  of  a  story  told  by  my  friend,  Judge 
Weldon,  of  the  Court  of  Claims  in  Washington.  He  was  an 
intimate  friend  of  the  sturdy  Oglesby,  who  was  Governor  of 
Illinois.  Soon  after  Oglesby  became  Governor,  a  rural  mem- 
ber of  the  legislature  came  to  him  and  said,  "Here  is  a  meas- 
ure you  must  veto/'  The  Governor  replied,  "I  do  not  want  to 
set  myself  up  as  a  veto  Governor  in  the  first  week  of  my  offi- 
cial life."  "The  bill  must  be  vetoed/'  said  the  representative, 
"here  is  something  that  was  passed  through  the  Senate  and 
the  House  and  I  never  heard  of  it  until  it  had  passed  both 
branches."  "This  measure,"  said  he,  "gives  to  John  Smith 
and  John  Jones  and  John  Brown,  who  claim  that  they  have 
an  improved  process  for  making  cheese,  the  right  to  make  all 
the  cheese  in  Bureau  County."  The  member  said,  "That  is 
my  county  and  is  a  great  agricultural  county  where  they  make 
two  hundred  tons  of  cheese  annually,  and  it  will  ruin  me 
politically  and  in  every  other  way  if  this  bill  becomes  a  law." 
The  Governor  said,  "You  should  have  attended  to  your  busi- 
ness and  seen  that  it  did  not  pass."  The  representative  in- 
sisted that  it  must  be  stopped  and  the  Governor  insisted  that 
he  did  not  want  to  set  himself  up  as  a  veto  Governor  the  first 
week,  and  finally  the  legislator  went  away  distracted.  After 
he  had  left,  the  sturdy  old  Governor  said,  "It  will  not  do  to 
let  that  go.  I  will  write  the  veto  message  now."  He  took  his 
pencil  and  a  sheet  of  paper  and  wrote,  "House  Bill,  Number 
9,  is  vetoed:  They  make  two  hundred  tons  of  cheese  annually 
in  Bureau  County  and  John  Smith  and  his  two  associates 
have  no  more  right  to  make  all  the  cheese  in  Bureau  County 
annually  than  they  have  to  eat  all  the  cheese  in  Bureau 
County  annually."  The  laconic  reasoning  of  Governor 
Oglesby  in  respect  to  the  right  of  John  Smith  and  his  two 
associates  embodies  all  the  philosophy  and  all  the  logic  of  the 
argument  against  monopolistic  control. 


576     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

There  is  a  Shoe  Machinery  monopoly  in  this  country  whose 
boasted  idea  is  to  absorb  all  competing  shoe  machines.  As 
you  are  doubtless  aware,  there  is  what  is  called  a  patent 
monopoly.  A  man  who  makes  an  invention  and  gets  a  patent 
on  a  thing  used  in  the  shoe  industry,  or  any  other  industry, 
is  allowed  through  his  patent,  upon  a  device  thus  invented, 
to  control  it  for  a  specified  length  of  time.  The  idea  of  that 
is  to  encourage  invention,  and  it  is  supposed  to  be  better  for 
the  people  that  such  an  invention  should  be  controlled  by  the 
inventor  for  a  limited  term  and  then  given  to  the  public, 
than  not  to  have  had  the  invention  at  all.  But  some- 
body else  invents  a  machine  substantially  as  good.  The  peo- 
ple then  have  a  right  to  the  influence  of  the  competing  ma- 
chine, but  it  is  claimed  that  the  Shoe  Machinery  monopoly  to 
which  I  have  referred  proposes  to  have  and  has,  in  fact,  a 
monopoly  of  all  the  shoe  machinery  in  the  country.  It  pos- 
sesses substantially  all  the  shoe  machinery  in  the  country  and 
no  man — and  I  think  there  are  gentlemen  here  who  can  sus- 
tain this  position  if  they  care  to — no  man  or  association  of 
men,  however  much  capital  they  may  have  behind  them,  can 
start  in  the  shoe  business  today,  without  dealing  with  that 
trust.  They  control  absolutely  the  modern  machinery  neces- 
sary to  a  successful  shoe  business.  They  not  only  compel  the 
manufacturer  to  buy  one  machine,  but  all  shoe  machinery  of 
them.  Not  only  that,  but  they  compel  the  manufacturer  to 
give  up  good  machines, — to  surrender  property  they  have,  by 
withholding  necessary  machines  which  they  control  until  they 
do  it.  They  have  a  general  department,  a  lasting  machinery 
department,  a  metallic  department,  a  heeling  department,  and 
in  each  of  these  departments  is  controlled  the  competing 
machinery  pertaining  to  that  particular  part  of  the  shoe  busi- 
ness, and  a  manufacturer  has  to  deal  with  them  in  order  to 
get  machinery  to  make  shoes.  They  not  only  compel  all  this, 
but  they  compel  the  shoe  manufacturers  to  buy  their  nails  at 
double  the  market  value  and  to  buy  their  wire,  which  they 
control;  and  the  machines  are  so  made  that  they  must  use 
their  wire,  and  their  nails,  which  they  force  upon  manufac- 
turers at  double  their  market  value.  But  the  most  offensive 
part  of  the  whole  thing  is  the  idea  that  they  compel  the 
manufacturer  to  displace  hand  work  and  to  use  their  ma- 
chines. Think  of  that!  Is  any  gentleman  going  to  stand 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBEK  16,  1902.  577 

here  and  say  trusts  are  right  when  one  concern  has  absorbed, 
and  boasts  of  the  fact  that  it  has  absorbed,  all  competing  shoe 
machinery  which  it  forces  upon  the  manufacturers  for  seven- 
teen years  at  extravagant  prices,  and  by  means  of  the  monop- 
oly, drives  hand  labor  out  of  the  shoe  manufacturing  industry 
and  its  machinery  in? 

Now,  I  will  refer  only  to  the  general  phases  of  the  coal 
situation,  and  only  briefly  to  the  coal  strike,  the  coal  combine 
and  the  coal  operators.  The  coal  operators  were  exercising  a 
quasi-public  franchise — I  speak,  of  course,  without  any  refer- 
ence to  the  underlying  merits  of  the  strike,  and  refer  to  the 
situation  merely  to  show  the  terrible  power  and  the  terrible 
danger  of  such  arbitrary  and  colossal  concentration  in  respect 
to  a  product  which  has  become  a  necessary  of  life  among  the 
people.  So  far  as  warming  this  country  is  concerned,  they 
might  as  well  have  owned  the  continent.  They  were  in  con- 
trol of  the  anthracite  coal  fields,  operating  a  quasi-public  fran- 
chise, and  in  control  of  a  business  which  was  to  provide 
fuel  necessary  to  warm  the  homes  of  the  country  towns  and 
the  homes  of  the  great  cities,  and  coal  necessary  to  drive  the 
machinery  of  the  great  manufacturing  industries,  and  of  the 
great  railway  and  steamship  systems  of  the  country.  They 
got  into  trouble  with  their  help.  A  strike  was  on.  A  frigid 
winter  was  approaching.  Alarm  was  widespread  throughout 
the  country;  consternation  was  in  every  home  and  in  every  in- 
dustry. It  was  not  only  a  question  whether  the  great  indus- 
trial pursuits  and  the  railroads  and  the  steamships  should 
stop,  but  whether  the  people  should  freeze.  And  when  asked 
by  the  President  of  the  United  States  to  waive,  for  the  time 
being,  the  question  of  abstract  right,  and  to  submit  their  con- 
troversies with  a  great  body  of  men  to  arbitration,  they,  in 
utter  disregard  of  the  great  question  of  necessity, — in  utter 
disregard  of  the  moral  and  humane  phase  of  the  crying  situa- 
tion,— stubbornly  refused,  and  coldly  held  their  franchise 
against  a  distracted  and  freezing  people,  and,  even  at  the  mo- 
ment the  President  of  the  United  States  was  urging  arbitra- 
tion upon  grounds  of  humanity,  they  demanded  of  the  state 
of  Pennsylvania  ten  thousand  soldiers  to  shoot  down  Ameri- 
cans with  whom  they  were  disputing  a  question  of  right. 

This  conduct  of  the  coal  operators  involved  a  terrible  exer- 
37 


578    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

else  of  a  corporate  franchise, — a  drastic  and  flagrant  exercise 
of  a  quasi-public  function. 

Now,  suppose,  for  instance,  it  were  a  question  of  water,  and 
it  were  the  great  city  of  Manchester,  or  Nashua,  or  the  town 
of  Littleton,  where  the  water  is  gathered  in  from  the  moun- 
tain-sides, and  run  through  the  pipes  of  a  corporation — sup- 
pose there  were  a  difference  between  the  management  in 
either  of  these  places  and  its  help.  Think  of  the  idea  of  a 
New  Hampshire  corporation  standing  out  and  asking  the 
people  who  are  dependent  upon  it  for  water  to  wait  and  thirst 
and  choke  until  the  corporation  puts  the  powers  of  govern- 
ment in  motion, — until  the  militia  is  in  the  field  to  shoot 
down  the  people  with  whom  they  are  disputing.  This  is  not 
an  extreme  comparison.  This  might  happen  in  New  Hamp- 
shire, but  I  trust  it  never  will. 

Now  what  suspended  the  coal  strike  and  gave  suffering 
humanity  a  meagre  stipend  of  coal? .  It  was  not  the  soldiers. 
It  was  not  the  fear  of  an  approaching  army.  It  was  not  the 
fear  of  bloodshed.  It  was  the  moral  force  of  a  calm  and  dig- 
nified expression  of  a  tremendous  public  sentiment  that  influ- 
enced the  situation.  The  coal  operators  awakened  for  the 
time  being  to  a  realization  of  the  truth,  that,  after  all,  the 
people  make  the  government,  that  they  held  their  right  to 
do  business  under  the  government,  and  that  it  would  not  be 
safe  to  freeze  the  American  people  in  a  body. 

The  abstract  and  arbitrary  attitude  wavered  and  went  down 
under  the  weight  of  the  sentiment  and  moral  force  of  a  united 
people.  Insistence  upon  the  exercise  of  a  quasi-public  func- 
tion as  an  abstract  and  absolute  right,  for  the  time  being, 
reluctantly  yielded  to  the  mighty  will  of  an  indignant  and 
outraged  people. 

That  is  the  moral  of  the  coal  situation,  and  it  shows  the 
importance  of  a  declaration  like  the  one  under  discussion. 
Let  us  show  the  world  in  unmistakable  words  where  the  senti- 
ment of  New  Hampshire  is  as  to  such  a  monopoly  of  a  neces- 
sary of  life. 

Look  at  the  copper  trust.  That  great  trust  is  ruining  all 
competing  corporate  enterprises  and  is  putting  the  screws  to 
prices  and  to  the  industries  which  require  copper  in  their 
works.  Competition  is  being  destroyed  and  copper  stocks  in 
corporations  outside  the  trust  have  dropped  to  a  mere  frac- 
tion of  their  former  prices. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  579 

Now  there  is  no  purpose  in  the  hearts  of  the  American 
people  to  deal  harshly  with  the  legitimate  exercise  of  cor- 
porate rights,  however  large  the  corporations,  or  however  ex- 
tensive such  rights  may  be.  It  is  of  the  abuse  through  the 
improper  exercise  of  corporate  rights  that  the  people  com- 
plain, and  it  is  the  violation  of  the  rights  of  the  public  that  is 
objected  to. 

Look  at  the  schemes  for  putting  shipping  into  trusts! 
Look  at  the  schemes  for  putting  the  railroads  of  the  country 
into  trusts!  Look  at  the  thousand  and  one  schemes  for  get- 
ting a  dominating  control  of  all  business  and  all  commodities 
in  a  certain  line!  I  have  no  time  to  refer  to  them  in  detail. 
There  is  absolutely  no  regard  in  these  schemes  for  the  govern- 
ment under  which  they  hold  the  corporate  right,  and  under 
which  they  claim  protection,  nor  is  there  any  thought  of  the 
consequences  to  the  welfare  of  other  men.  The  only  thought 
is  to  devour,  absorb  and  control.  They  do  not  seem  to  real- 
ize when  they  have  enough.  There  is  no  greed  so  gross 
except  that  shown  under  the  brutal  law  of  the  fishes  of  the 
sea,  where  the  larger  ones  devour  the  smaller  of  their  own 
kind  under  the  absolute  rule  of  might. 

The  dominating  idea  in  this  country,  as  I  have  said,  is  to 
find  a  remedy  against  the  evils  of  monopoly  and  one  which 
will  restore  healthy  competition  in  the  trades  and  industries. 

Now,  what  is  the  remedy,  and  how  is  it  to  come?  The 
remedy  is  through  the  governments,  and  the  governments 
should  interpose  and  take  the  burden  of  providing  the 
remedy,  because  the  oppression  rests  upon  all  the  people 
alike.  But  the  people  must  do  their  part. 

Regulation,  as  I  have  observed,  does  not  involve  destruc- 
tion. I  am  aware  of  the  fact  that  there  is  danger  to  any 
political  party  which  assails  these  great  interests.  There  is 
the  liability  of  a  great  many  influences  being  thrown  against 
such  party.  So  I  say,  as  I  said  in  the  outset,  that  it  should 
not  be  a  party  question.  Both  the  great  political  parties  of 
this  country  should  be  in  accord  on  this  question.  This  is  a 
business  proposition.  It  is  a  question  whether  the  business 
rights  of  the  people  shall  be  restored.  Both  parties  being  in 
accord,  they  should  be  in  earnest,  and  should  not  make  this  a 
question  of  party  politics,  for  it  is  not  a  party  question.  The 
party  that  is  not  in  earnest  upon  this  great  question,  involv- 


580     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ing  the  business  rights  of  the  people,  will  surely  be  over- 
thrown. 

In  my  judgment,  Congress  will  surely  regulate  trusts  doing 
interstate  business,  but  if  Congress  fails  to  regulate  such 
trusts,  the  people  in  the  end  will  surely  regulate  Congress. 

The  business  and  the  industries  are  going  out  of  the  hands 
of  the  people — first  into  corporations,  and  then  into  trustp. 
Commercial  despotism  is  at  hand! 

The  pending  resolutions  enunciate  no  new  principle  of 
law;  they  simply  assert  in  concrete  form  a  great  and  essential 
truth.  They  are  in  a  form  which  the  people  will  understand, 
and  which  the  trusts  will  understand.  Congress  and  the  state 
legislatures  will  pass  such  laws  as  the  sentiment  of  the  coun- 
try  demands,  and  will  go  no  farther.  The  people  are  the 
government,  and  the  governments  of  the  states  and  the  na- 
tion are  simply  the  agents  of  the  people. 

Money  and  property  are  so  alarmingly  aggregated  in  trusts 
that  a  dozen  men,  under  the  leadership  of  such  a  man  as 
Pierpont  Morgan,  can  at  any  moment  create  a  financial  panic, 
which  would  ruin  hundreds  of  thousands  of  business  men  and 
women  and  make  hundreds  of  millions  of  dollars  for  them- 
selves. 

I  repeat  that  we  are  being  swiftly  drawn  towards  commer- 
cial despotism,  but  the  people  will  surely  make  a  stand  before 
the  sway  of  such  an  empire  is  fully  and  firmly  established. 

Under  a  government  founded  upon  the  will  of  the  people, 
capital  had  better  be  conservative  rather  than  push  advantage 
too  far,  lest  it  reap  the  whirlwind.  Promoters  can  more 
safely  deal  justly  with  a  people  tempered  with  tolerance,  than 
unjustly  with  an  outraged  people  filled  with  wrath. 

The  law  is  in  the  hands  of  the  people,  and  the  government 
is  whatever  the  people,  under  constitutional  limitations, 
choose  to  make  it,  and,  as  I  have  already  said,  a  government 
of  the  people  goes  no  farther  than  the  people  demand.  The 
state  governments  are  strong,  and  the  general  government  is 
strong,  and  whenever  the  people  choose  to  assert  their  rights, 
so  far  as  they  are  involved  in  corporate  existence  created  by 
law,  the  reserved  power  of  the  governments  to  alter  and 
amend  in  respect  to  public  rights  entering  therein,  is  suffi- 
cient to  regulate  the  business  and  industries  as  they  should 
be  regulated,  and  protect  the  people  as  they  should  be  pro- 
tected. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  581 

The  people  have  been  sleeping  upon  their  lawful  rights; 
they  have  been  disposed  to  be  tolerant.  They  have  freely  ac- 
corded to  corporations  full  opportunity  to  prosecute  their 
enterprises  and  declare  generous  dividends.  They  are,  how- 
ever, awakening  to  the  idea  that  their  tolerance  and  indul- 
gence is  being  abused,  and  that  they  are  being  robbed  of  their 
most  precious  rights.  Whenever  the  people  of  our  country 
become  fully  apprised  of  the  fact  that  their  rights  are  being 
prostituted  by  a  criminal  commercial  greed,  and  through  a 
conspiracy  to  destroy  legitimate  competition  in  the  trades  and 
industries,  they  will  arise  in  their  might  and  assert  their  law- 
ful rights  through  a  constitutional  government  created  for 
their  protection. 

Whenever  this  day  comes — and  it  may  come  quickly — the 
corporate  combinations  and  the  immense  trusts,  with  their 
stupendous  aggregations  of  wealth,  can  no  more  stay  the  will 
of  the  people  of  this  great  country  through  the  money  influ- 
ence of  unwholesome  aggregations  than  they  could  turn  back 
the  onrushing  waters  of  the  mighty  Niagara  with  a  riding 
whip. 

The  rights  of  the  public,  Mr.  President,  will  not  be  ascer- 
tained and  re-established  through  a  bloody  revolution,  as 
some  think.  Bloodshed  will  not  be  necessary  and  an  intel- 
ligent civilization  would  not  permit  it;  but,  when  the  time 
comes,  the  result  will  be  reached  with  terrible  swiftness  and 
complete  effectiveness  through  the  determined  and  intelligent 
will  of  a  great  people,  asserted  under  the  beneficent  and 
wholesome  spirit  and  ample  forms  of  constitutional  law. 

One  word  more,  and  I  am  done. 

I  wish  that  every  intentional  wrecker  of  the  public  rights 
and  the  rights  of  the  people  might  be  made  to  know,  that  a 
New  Hampshire  Constitutional  Convention  has  unanimously 
declared  against  the  slavery  of  criminal  monopoly,  and  that 
individual  enterprise  and  free  and  fair  competition  in  the 
trades  and  industries  is  an  essential  truth  which  the  people 
will  maintain. 

Mr.  Casey  of  Concord — Mr.  President  and  gentlemen:  In 
regard  to  the  regulation  by  the  legislature  of  trusts,  I  am 
heartily  in  accord  with  such  a  movement,  and  I  believe  it 


582     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

would  be  wise  that  small  concerns  should  live  as  well  as  large 
ones,  as  it  would  create  a  competition  and  would  be  a  benefit 
to  the  people  at  large,  by  keeping  the  prices  of  the  necessities 
of  life  where  laboring  men  and  others  could  live  with  some 
degree  of  comfort.  I  believe  it  should  be  made  a  criminal 
offense  for  any  combination  of  men  with  large  capital  to  try 
and  crush  every  one  so  they  can  extort  from  the  people  every 
cent  they  possess,  and  more  too.  There  was  a  law  passed  in 
congress  some  years  ago  entitled  the  "Sherman  Anti-Trust 
Law,"  which  gave  the  people  some  hope  that  it  would  deter 
the  formation  of  trusts,  but  what  has  it  performed?  Nothing. 
In  fact,  ever  since  that  time  the  trusts  have  been  getting  more 
numerous  and  the  Sherman  law  is  a  dead  letter,  but  it  appears 
that  they  are  enacting  a  law  at  the  present  time  in  congress 
to  remedy  this  defect. 

Gentlemen,  let  us  look  back  a  few  years  and  see  what  trusts 
have  been  formed.  Some  of  the  greatest  combinations  that 
the  world  ever  saw.  Look  at  the  coal  trust,  the  beef  trust, 
and  the  great  shipping  trust,  which  Mr.  Morgan  engineered  in 
Europe;  why,  in  fact,  he  had  an  idea  that  he  could  get  Ger- 
many and  England  in  his  grasp,  so  he  would  be  able  to  dic- 
tate to  those  countries  as  well  as  the  United  States.  Last 
summer  when  the  price  of  beef  was  advanced  the  people  were 
dumbfounded  at  the  steps  taken  by  the  beef  trust.  Denun- 
ciations were  hurled  at  the  combination  from  all  parts  of  the 
country  until  it  was  so  well  agitated  as  to  cause  some  of  the 
authorities  of  a  few  of  the  states  to  take  up  the  matter  and 
signify  their  desire  to  do  something  to  curb  the  insatiable 
greed  of  the  beef  trust  magnates.  From  what  I  could  see 
there  was  no  unusual  condition  in  this  country  or  in  foreign 
countries  to  warrant  such  steps  on  the  part  of  the  trust. 
They  imagined  that  the  people  had  a  few  dollars  that  they 
could  not  take  care  of,  so  they  came  to  the.  conclusion  that 
they  would  extort  it  from  them  and  add  it  to  their  immense 
wealth  so  they  could  endow  some  university  with  a  million  or 
two,  in  order  that  their  names  will  be  handed  down  to  pos- 
terity for  their  philanthropy,  by  the  money  extracted  from 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  583 

the  people.  I  hope  the  resolution  presented  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  will  be  adopted  by  the 
Convention. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — There  is  little  that  can  be  said,  in 
the  presentation  of  this  matter,  in  the  drawing  of  legal  con- 
clusions or  in  the  analysis  of  the  practical  operation  or  forma- 
tion of  these  trusts  that  has  not  already  been  said. 

I  have  no  desire  to  take  time  and  I  shall  certainly  do  so  but 
a  very  few  minutes.  It  does  seem  to  me  fitting,  however,  that, 
feeling  as  I  do,  I  should  speak  with  reference  to  the  enormity 
of  trusts  and  the  evils  they  have  forced  upon  the  people  of  the 
United  States. 

Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  it  cannot  be  otherwise  than  under- 
stood in  a  free  republic  like  ours  that  individual  independence 
with  competition  and  the  exercise  of  individual  rights  are  the 
basis  of  our  prosperity  and  independent  character.  Every 
man  has  the  right  inherently  to  buy  where  he  can  buy  cheap- 
est and  sell  where  he  can  sell  best.  Every  man  has  a  right  to 
produce,  and  it  does  not,  in  my  judgment,  follow  by  any 
means  that  because  a  large  corporation  can  produce  things 
cheaper  than  the  individual  it  is  better  to  give  up  producing 
by  the  individual  and  produce  wholly  by  means  of  the  large 
corporation.  I  believe  in  the  New  England  of  olden  times, 
when  the  farmers,  instead  of  raising  one  or  two  different 
products  upon  their  farms,  raised  all  things  necessary  for  the 
support  of  their  families  and  did  all  the  things  that  went  to 
make  business  success  in  life — I  believe  in  those  times  that 
that  farmer  and  that  man  was  more  independent,  not  only  in 
the  matter  of  making  money,  but  in  all  that  goes  to  make  up 
a  successful  life,  than  the  farmer  of  to-day,  who  produces 
only  one  or  two  things  and  buys  most  of  the  necessities  of  life. 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  formation  of  character  is  an  im- 
portant part  of  the  development  of  the  county,  region,  or 
state.  New  Hampshire,  when  she  was  more  self-reliant  than 
to-day,  may  not  perhaps  have  made  so  much  money,  but  when 
she  was  thus  more  self-reliant  in  all  the  essentials  of  life  and 


584     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

in  all  the  essentials  that  go  to  build  up  and  develop  character, 
was  better  off  than  to-day  in  that  regard. 

I  believe  these  combinations  have  taken  out  from  the  life 
of  the  people  the  independence  and  the  self-reliance  so  char- 
acteristic of  old.  The  formation  of  trusts  in  the  control  of 
business  by  the  trusts  and  the  influence  of  trusts  in  the  com- 
munity go  far  to  change  the  character  of  a  people. 

As  has  been  already  said,  there  is  no  proper  antagonism  be- 
tween capital  and  labor.  Each  is  the  complement  of  the 
other.  Each  is  essential  to  the  proper  development  and  pros- 
perity of  the  other.  Both  should  work  together  for  the  com- 
mon good.  There  is  no  antagonism  on  the  part  of  the  people 
of  New  Hampshire  toward  the  accumulation  of  wealth.  The 
poor  man  of  to-day  may  be  the  rich  man  of  to-morrow. 

I  suppose  every  delegate  in  this  hall  will  agree  with  me  at 
heart  when  I  say  that  when  the  people  are  self-reliant,  when 
they  spend  that  which  they  accumulate  themselves,  and  when 
they  know  the  value  of  money  before  they  spend  it,  that  that 
is  a  better  state  of  affairs  than  such  a  state  as  we  now  very 
often  see  where  there  is  recklessness  and  carelessness  in  the 
spending  and  greed  in  the  acquiring  of  property. 

I  do  not  believe  that  a  community  is  ever  really  benefited 
by  the  formation  of  a  class  of  extremely  rich  and  another  class 
of  extremely  poor.  I  believe  that  property  more  equitably 
distributed  and  a  community  where  few  are  exceedingly  rich, 
and  none  are  distressingly  poor,  is  the  ideal  condition  of  so- 
ciety. 

We  are  not  here  in  any  degree  to  denounce  wealth  properly 
accumulated.  I  recall  in  the  legislature  of  1868  that  a  great 
question  of  railroad  extension  and  change  came  up  for  discus- 
sion, the  proposition  being  to  unite  certain  roads  that  were 
weak  and  almost  helpless,  and  it  was  understood  that  the  re- 
sult would  be  the  formation  of  a  strong  combination  able  to 
extend  railroad  facilities  to  other  parts  of  the  state  then 
poorly  supplied.  I  had  something  to  do  with  that  contest, 
advocating  the  consolidation.  As  a  result  of  the  action  of 
that  legislature  railroads  were  extended  to  the  northern  part 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  585 

of  New  Hampshire,  to  my  own  town  of  Lancaster,  and  up  to 
connect  with  the  Grand  Trunk  railway.  Immediately  a  great 
development  began  and  the  people  of  the  northern  part  of  the 
state  were  benefited  by  that  combination.  There  was  a  union 
of  capital  which  was  thoroughly  beneficial  to  the  people. 
Later,  in  1883,  another  railroad  contest  arose  in  the  legisla- 
ture, and  again  action  was  taken  which  unified  existing  roads 
and  gave  greater  facilities  to  the  people.  It  gave  the  people 
local  development  all  through  New  Hampshire,  when  instead 
of  having  conditions  where  in  order  to  move  freight  or  passen- 
gers one  would  have  to  pay  two  or  more  local  rates  for  local 
business,  and  instead  of  having  such  conditions,  that  business 
men  were  obliged  to  pay  a  local  freight  in  addition  to  through 
freights  on  produce  from  the  West,  the  consolidation  brought 
about  a  condition  where  New  Hampshire  was  accorded  the 
same  privileges  of  through  business  as  the  large  cities  of  New 
England,  and  where  local  business  was  done  by  one  corpora- 
tion at  one  local  rate.  And  again  the  north  country  has  taken 
a  start  and  the  railroads  have  again  extended  into  the  woods, 
to  the  lakes  and  mountains,  and  again  was  illustrated  the 
effects  of  a  proper  union  of  capital  and  facilities.  Again  was 
illustrated  the  fact  that  such  union  was  a  benefit  to  the  state. 
We  have  in  the  north  country  numerous  hotels  and  board- 
ing-houses. The  last  hotel  built  is  the  most  magnificent  of 
them  all,  a  house  capable  of  accommodating  500  people,  and 
the  most  superb  hotel  in  the  Union  given  up  to  summer  busi- 
ness. All  these  accumulations  of  wealth  are  proper,  and  a 
benefit  to  the  community  and  state,  and  the  people  of  the 
state  are  not  antagonistic  to  those  combinations  in  the  least. 
They  help  to  develop  business,  they  furnish  markets  and  aid 
prosperity.  All  that,  I  believe  to  be  a  proper  way  of  using 
money  and  capital.  I  believe,  too,  that  the  associations  that 
come  from  our  greater  development  from  travel  into  the  state, 
the  associations  of  people  from  one  section  of  the  state  with 
those  of  another  section,  and  of  other  states,  are  a  great  ben- 
efit to  our  people.  All  things  that  aid  in  this  direction  are  a 
legitimate  use  of  capital. 


586     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

But  the  combinations  that  have  been  so  vividly  illustrated 
by  the  gentleman  from  Littleton  all  operate  in  another  direc- 
tion. They  take  away  the  real  life  of  the  people;  they  take 
away  the  independence  of  the  people;  they  stop  that  competi- 
tion without  which  there  is  no  hope  for  the  business  man  or 
for  him  who  has  to  buy  or  sell.  Without  competition  there  is 
no  hope  to  the  young  man  as  there  can  be  no  career  before  him. 
If  he  must  come  up  only  as  his  father  came  up,  if  he  must  fol- 
low only  the  same  ruts  that  his  father  walked  in,  without  in- 
crease of  opportunity,  if  he  cannot  hope  to  have  other  and 
further  prosperity  than  his  father  had,  by  reason  of  closing  of 
avenues  of  advancement,  his  ambition  is  crushed  and  he  falls 
back  and  the  state  fails  to  get  the  benefit  that  conies  from 
greater  exertion  and  progressive  development. 

And  that  is  what  these  trusts,  or  combinations,  that  have 
been  talked  about  do.  They  take  away  competition,  they  take 
away  opportunity,  and  they  take  away  ambition.  Not  only 
that,  but  they  take  away  the  best  characteristics  from  the  peo- 
ple. They  rob  them  of  individuality,  and  build  up  a  class  of 
rich  who  live  without  work  and  are  of  little  benefit  to  the 
land.  Their  influence  is  against  that  frugality,  industry,  and 
economy  which  should  exist  in  the  state. 

I  believe  the  state  is  for  its  people.  We  are  interested  in 
maintaining  the  old  characteristics  of  the  state;  we  believe  in 
maintaining  that  character  of  New  Hampshire  exalted  and 
exemplified  since  the  days  of  the  Puritans.  It  is  true  that 
New  Hampshire  has  changed  in  many  ways  as  well  as  other 
states  of  the  Union,  but  I  believe  that  the  greatest  blow 
at  New  Hampshire  character,  to  break  the  independence  of 
New  Hampshire  men,  is  the  blow  which  may  be  struck  by  the 
trusts  in  trying  to  get  her  property  and  the  control  of  her 
trade  into  their  hands.  Those  things  emasculate  a  people. 
They  take  away  their  power  for  development,  and  the  end  will 
be  if  we  allow  them  to  grow  they  will  have  the  people  of  the 
state  and  the  people  of  the  federal  Union  in  the  grasp  of  a 
tyranny  and  chained  in  class  slavery,  so  that  the  state  and  the 
federal  Union  will  never  be  what  they  were  intended  to  be  by 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  587 

the  founders.  Instead  of  being  governments  of  a  free  people 
going  on  into  higher  conditions  of  development  they  will  fall 
back  into  the  conditions  of  the  Old  World  where  there  is  class 
against  class,  and  where  the  pomp  of  aristocracy  is  set  against 
the  virtue  and  intelligence  of  the  individual. 

It  seems  to  me  of  the  greatest  importance  at  this  time  when 
the  trusts  are  reaching  out  still  further,  and  when  we  see 
every  day  around  us,  as  has  been  so  clearly  illustrated,  an  in- 
crease in  the  prices  of  the  necessities  of  life,  and  when  we  see 
the  control  by  these  trusts  of  industries  and  greater  suffering 
is  in  store,  and  the  way  the  trusts  rob  and  take  from  the 
people,  it  seems  to  me  that  now  is  the  time  to  proclaim 
throughout  New  Hampshire  by  its  representatives  assembled 
here  in  convention,  "Thus  far  shalt  thou  go  and  no  farther." 

It  has  been  properly  said  that  we  are  not  protesting  against 
existing  trusts  in  New  Hampshire.  We  have  no  such  trust  in 
New  Hampshire  as  these  that  we  are  proclaiming  against,  but 
it  is  essential  to  proclaim  from  the  mountains  to  the  sea  to  all 
who  may  care  to  know  her  position  and  who  see  the  trend  of 
affairs;  not  only  to  all  of  those,  in  this  state,  but  in  the  Union, 
that  New  Hampshire  is  decided  in  this  matter  and  that  she 
reserves  to  herself  those  powers  that  belong  to  her  and  that 
she  is  utterly  and  absolutely  opposed  to  the  existence  and  con- 
tinuance of  trusts  that  affect  the  welfare  of  the  people  or  dom- 
inate and  destroy  the  individuality  of  the  citizens.  It  is  well 
to  say  this  to  the  federal  government;  it  is  well  to  say  this  to 
combinations  that  are  forming  all  over  the  country,  and  if  no 
other  thing  is  accomplished  in  this  Convention  it  will  be 
enough  if  we  put  ourselves  -upon  record  that  the  New  Hamp- 
shire of  1902  is  the  New  Hampshire  of  1775,  and  that  we 
stand  where  we  have  stood  and  that  New  Hampshire  bows  to 
none  but  God  in  the  direction  of  her  own  affairs. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  move  that  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  do  now  arise  and  recommend  to  the  Convention 
that  all  the  propositions  concerning  trusts  be  referred  to  the 
Committee  on  Bill  of  Eights  and  Executive  Department,  with 


588     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

instructions  to  report  to  the  Convention  a  declaration  upon 
that  subject. 

The  Chairman — The  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  that  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  do  now  arise  and  recommend  to  the  Convention 
that  all  the  propositions  concerning  trusts,  combinations,  and 
monopolies  be  taken  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and 
referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Eights  and  the  Execu- 
tive Department,  with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Conven- 
tion a  declaration  upon  that  subject. 

(The  motion  was  unanimously  adopted.) 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Norris  of  Portsmouth — Mr.  President,  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole  having  had  under  consideration  the  resolution 
of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  and  the  reso- 
lution of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Starr,  and  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr.  Ledoux,  all 
relating  to  trusts,  have  voted  to  recommend  to  the  Conven- 
tion that  all  the  propositions  concerning  trusts,  combinations, 
and  monopolies,  which  tend  to  destroy  competition  in  trade, 
be  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Bill  of  Eights  and  the  Ex- 
ecutive Department,  with  instructions  to  report  to  the  Con- 
vention a  declaration  upon  that  subject. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  moved  that  the  recommendation 
of  the  committee  be  adopted,  and  on  the  question  called  for 
the  yeas  and  nays,  nine  other  members  concurring. 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative: 

EOCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Sanborn  of  Auburn,  Flanders  of 
Brentwood,  Eaton,  Knowles,  Kimball  of  Danville,  Gillispie, 
Abbott  of  Deny,  Fuller,  Wetherell,  Leddy,  Hooke,  Sanborn 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  589 

of  Hampstead,  Towle,  Weare,  Shaw,  Chase  of  Kingston,  Pills- 
bury,  Pollard,  De  Eochemont,  Battles,  Evans,  Gate,  Peaslee, 
Emery,  Simon  P.,  Howard,  Norris,  Ham,  Cullen,  Sawyer  of 
Eye,  Cole,  Locke  of  Seabrook,  Jewell  of  South  Hampton, 
Wingate,  Clark  of  Windham. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY.  Eoberts,  Hanson  of  Dover,  Nealley, 
Hall  of  Dover,  Morang,  Folsom,  Nute  of  Dover,  Chesley,  Nut- 
ter of  Farmington,  Willson  of  Farmington,  Moore,  Nute  of 
Eochester,  Header,  Gelinas,  Cochrane,  Gunnison,  Edgerly, 
Hall  of  Stratford. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY.  Demeritt,  Colbath,  Clark  of  Center 
Harbor,  Morrill  of  Gilford,  Jewett,  Thompson  of  Laconia, 
Smith  of  Meredith,  Smith  of  New  Hampton,  Knox,  Eogers, 
Fellows. 

CARROLL  COUNTY.  Nickerson,  Eideout,  Colman,  Spencer, 
Hobson,  Gibson,  Morrill  of  Conway,  Dearborn  of  Eaton,  Har- 
mon, Merrow,  Murch,  Meserve,  Gilman,  Goodwin,  Brown  of 
Ossipee,  Dorr,  Page  of  Tamworth,  Morrison  of  Tuftonbor- 
ough,  Sanborn  of  Wakefield,  Clow. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY.  Stone  of  Andover,  Buxton,  Baker, 
•Frame,  Sanborn  of  Chichester,  Dudley  of  Concord,  Foote, 
Hollis,  Lyford,  Mitchell  of  Concord,  Niles,  Foster,  Kimball  of 
Concord,  Walker  of  Concord,  Lamprey  of  Concord,  Ingalls, 
Chandler,  Casey,  Ford  of  Danbury,  Caldwell,  Dolbeer,  Stone 
of  Franklin,  Leach,  Towne,  Wilson  of  Hill,  Putnam,  Clough 
of  Loudon,  Messer,  Todd,  Chickering,  Green  of  Pittsfield, 
Webster,  Thompson  of  Warner,  Lang. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Hubbard,  Kimball  of  Benning- 
ton,  Fessenden,  Whitaker  of  Deering,  Downes,  Colby,  Paige 
of  Goffstown,  Peavey,  Bacon,  Fogg,  Smith  of  Hillsborough, 
Clyde,  Marsh,  Tarbell,  Lambert,  Wilkinson,  Abbott  of  Man- 
chester, Briggs,  Cross,  Green  of  Manchester,  Dodge  of  Man- 
chester, Little,  Eose,  Jones,  Eobinson,  Tremblay,  Farrington, 
Harvey,  Hill,  Precourt,  McDonough,  Tonery,  Starr,  Horan, 
Glancy,  Sullivan,  Griffin,  Jennings,  Hildreth  of  Manchester, 


590     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Irwin,  McAllister,  Clement  of  Manchester,  Littlefield,  Mc- 
Questen,  Powers  of  Manchester,  McElroy,  Greager,  Richer, 
Provost,  Quirin  Eugene,  Guerin,  Boivin,  Hall  of  Manches- 
ter, Trinity,  Paige  of  Manchester,  Whitaker  of  Mason,  Gor- 
don, Worcester,  Raymond,  Clough  of  Nashua,  Harriman, 
Flood,  Ledoux,  Wason,  Woodbury  of  Nashua,  Proctor,  Run- 
nells,  McKay,  Shedd,  Flather,  Earley,  Slattery,  Desmarais, 
Dodge  of  New  Boston,  Blanchard,  Seavey,  Morrison  of  Peter- 
borough, Scott,  Richardson,  Simons,  Bales,  Chapman. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Cooke,  Learned,  Blake,  Farwell, 
Buckley,  Poole,  Annett,  Foskett,  Hall  of  Keene,  Newell,  Craig 
of  Marlow,  Osgood,  Cass,  Buckminster,  McClure,  Spaulding, 
Goodnow. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY.  Mitchell  of  Acworth,  Brooks,  Ten- 
ney,  Stockwell,  Rossiter,  Fairbanks,  Ide,  Hanson  of  Goshen, 
Burpee,  Holmes,  Noyes,  Barton,  Richards,  Penniman,  Bart- 
lett,  Newton,  Brockway. 

GRAFTON  COUNTY.  Bucklin,  Carbee,  Parker  of  Benton, 
Hildreth  of  Bethlehem,  Morrill  of  Bridgewater,  Chase  of 
Bristol,  Pulsifer  of  Campton,  Richardson  of  Canaan,  Ashley, 
Young  of  Easton,  Avery,  Cumings,  Dresser,  Parker  of  Fran- 
conia,  Walker  of  Grafton,  Kidder,  Ward,  Colby  of  Hanover, 
Sloane,  Pike  of  Haverhill,  Jewell  of  Hebron,  Flanders,  Drake, 
Dewey,  Hibbard,  Morris,  Aldrich  of  Littleton,  Greene  of  Lit- 
tleton, Morse,  Melvin,  Warden,  French  of  Orange,  Lamprey  of 
Orford,  Ford  of  Piermont,  Russell,  Wentworth,  Craig  of  Rum- 
ney,  Green  of  Waterville,  Shute,  Woodbury  of  Woodstock. 

Coos  COUNTY.  Moffett,  Rich,  Daley,  Boudreau,  Murray, 
Miles,  Johnson,  Titus,  Wight  of  Dummer,  Evans,  Crawford, 
Kent,  Hartley,  Phipps,  Perkins,  McKellips,  Blanchard,  Phil- 
brook,  Pike  of  Stark,  Hinman,  Aldrich  of  Whitefield,  Dodge 
of  Whitefield. 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative: 
MERRIMACK  COUNTY.     Howe. 
CHESHIRE  COUNTY.     Madden. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  591 

And  294  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and 
two  in  the  negative,  the  affirmative  prevailed  and  the  recom- 
mendation of  the  committee  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — There  was  laid  on  the  table  the 
other  day  my  motion  to  reconsider  the  vote  on  the  woman's 
suffrage  amendment.  After  conference  with  a  gentleman  who 
opposed  that  amendment  and  who  desired  a  full  vote,  and  in 
accordance  with  the  agreement  I  made  with  the  gentleman  on 
the  floor  when  I  moved  to  lay  the  motion  on  the  table,  I  now 
move  that  it  be  taken  from  the  table  for  the  purpose  of  mak- 
ing it  a  special  order  for  Thursday  at  11:30  o'clock  in  the 
forenoon,  a  vote  to  be  taken  at  that  time  without  debate. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — I  stated  to  the  gentleman 
from  Concord  that  so  far  as  I  was  concerned  I  did  not  care  to 
further  debate  it.  But  I  think  there  are  some  gentlemen  here 
who  desire  to  talk  upon  the  question. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  desire  to  be  perfectly  fair  with 
the  gentlemen  on  the  other  side.  If  there  is  a  desire  to  debate 
the  question  I  will  make  a  motion  that  it  be  made  a  special 
order  for  Thursday  at  11  o'clock,  and  that  the  vote  be  taken 
at  12. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  intend  to  give  notice  before  we 
adjourn  this  afternoon  that  I  shall  move  for  an  evening  ses- 
sion to-morrow  evening.  I  do  not  suggest  that  the  gentleman 
from  Concord  change  his  time  for  voting,  but  I  desire  to  say 
now  that  I  hope  we  will  be  able  to  have  a  session  to-morrow 
evening,  and  this  may  affect  somewhat  the  vote  upon  the  mo- 
tion of  the  gentleman  from  Concord. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  am  perfectly  willing  debate 
should  be  had  at  any  time.  I  have  no  desire,  and  do  not  know 
that  any  of  the  friends  of  this  measure  have  any  desire,  to  de- 
bate it  further.  If  the  opponents  of  the  measure  desire  to 
debate  it  I  am  perfectly  willing  that  they  should  have  the  time 


592    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

to  do  it,  and  whether  they  desire  to  take  that  time  in  the 
evening  or  in  the  day  time  is  immaterial  to  me. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — I  think  the  gentleman  from 
Concord  understands  that  we  have  not  debated  this  question 
in  a  full  house,  that  at  the  time  of  the  former  debate  there 
was  barely  a  quorum  present,  and  the  object  of  having  this 
measure  reconsidered  is  to  have  a  full  vote  on  the  question. 
There  are  at  least  a  hundred  or  more  who  go  home  every 
night  and  we  will  not  have  them  here  to-morrow  night.  I 
hope,  therefore,  we  will  have  this  debate  in  the  day  time  when 
all  are  here.  I  see  no  objection  to  Thursday  from  11  to  12. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  make  no  objection  to  the 
time.  I  wish,  however,  to  take  up  your  time  for  a  moment  or 
two.  I  do  not  see  how  this  Convention  can  properly  do  its 
business  and  adjourn  Friday  or  Saturday,  for  good  or  for  evil, 
unless  we  hold  evening  sessions.  I  have  taken  myself  away 
from  other  business  and  have  given  my  time  to  the  business 
of  this  Convention,  for  I  felt  it  was  a  great  honor  to  be 
elected  in  my  old  age  to  a  body  of  this  character,  and  I  will 
come  here  next  week  and  the  week  after,  and  will  stay  here 
as  long  as  necessary  for  reasonable  debate  upon  any  subject. 
But  unless  there  is  a  better  attendance  than  we  have  had  so 
that  we  can  do  business  in  the  evening  and  make  longer  days 
of  our  day  sessions,  I  do  not  see  how  we  can  get  through 
this  week.  When  gentlemen  go  away  from  Concord  at  half- 
past  three  in  the  afternoon  and  get  back  at  half -past  ten  the 
next  day,  and  do  not  come  here  any  days  of  the  week  except 
Tuesdays,  Wednesdays,  and  Thursdays,  it  does  n't  seem  to  me 
remarkable  that  we  do  not  get  along  faster  with  our  business. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester — I  think  it  will  be  more  satis- 
factory to  all  the  members  who  are  interested  in  having  this 
matter  of  Woman  Suffrage  reconsidered  fairly  and  by  a  con- 
vention that  has  the  seats  nearly  all  occupied,  if  the  motion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  as  originally  made 
should  prevail.  That  is,  that  the  matter  should  be  taken  up 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  190:1  593 

as  the  special  order  for  Thursday  at  11  o'clock  and  voted  on 
at  12,  or  before  if  the  debate  ceases  before,  but  with  the 
understanding  that  the  debate  shall  not  exceed  an  hour  in 
length. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — The  gentleman  from  Manchester 
has  anticipated  a  modification  that  I  was  about  to  make  of 
my  motion.  That  is,  that  the  vote  should  be  taken  sooner 
if  there  was  no  more  to  be  said  upon  the  subject,  or  when  it 
is  evident  that  the  Convention  has  reached  a  point  where 
any  other  speeches  made  would  have  no  effect.  I  would 
therefore  move  that  this  matter  be  made  a  special  order  for 
Thursday  at  11  o'clock,  and  that  the  vote  be  taken  as  much 
earlier  than  12  o'clock  as  possible,  and  that  it  be  taken 
positively  by  12. 

Mr.  Clough  of  Nashua — I  would  like  to  ask  what  the  state 
of  the  vote  was  when  the  roll-call  was  made  on  this  question 
the  other  day,  and  would  like  to  be  informed  how  I  am 
recorded  as  having  voted.  I  received  a  letter  to-day 
which  said  upon  its  cover, — "Thank  you  for  remembering 
the  Golden  Rule."  It  was  from  the  members  of  the  Associa- 
tion for  Woman's  Suffrage.  I  hope  I  remember  the  Golden 
Rule  always,  but  I  did  not  quite  understand  what  was  meant 
by  that  remark  coming  from  the  source  it  did.  I  am  not 
willing  to  wear  laurels  that  are  not  properly  mine,  and  I  wish 
to  say  that  I  did  not  vote  for  the  proposition  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Warner,  Mr.  Thompson.  I  favored  the 
amendment  of  Judge  Aldrich,  and  voted  "No"  when  the  yeas 
and  nays  were  called!  the  other  day. 

The  President — The  chair  will  answer  the  gentleman  from 
Manchester  by  saying  that  the  ayes  were  143  and  the  nays  94, 
and  that  he  was  recorded  as  having  voted  in  the  negative. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford  was  stated  and  upon  a  viva  voce 
vote  prevailed. 

Mr.  Shaw  of  Kensington  offered  the  following  resolution: 


594     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

"Resolved,  That  this  Convention  be  brought  to  a  close  on 
Friday,  the  19th  inst.,  at  12  o'clock,  noon." 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  the  resolution  was 
laid  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Leg- 
islative Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Foster  of  Concord  to  article  thirty-six  of  the  Bill  of 
Eights  relative  to  pensions,  reported  the  same  with  the  fol- 
lowing resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  amendment  ought  to  be  adopted." 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  resolution  adopted,  and 
the  proposed  amendment  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amend- 
ments Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Leg- 
islative Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  amendment 
proposed  by  Mr.  Ham  of  Portsmouth  for  the  amendment  of 
article  five,  part  two,  of  the  Constitution,  relating  to  empow- 
ering the  general  court  to  levy  assessments,  rates,  and  taxes 
upon  inheritances,  reported  the  same  with  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  the  proposed 
amendment." 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — Before  that  resolution  is  put  to 
the  Convention  it  should  be  stated  that  the  subject  matter 
embraced  in  that  amendment  is  all  included  in  another 
amendment  which  the  committee  has  reported  favorably,  and 
this  is  reported  "inexpedient  to  recommend"  simply  because 
the  matter  is  considered  favorably  in  a  report  to  another  pro- 
posed amendment. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  595 

The  question  being  stated,  shall  the  resolution  of  the  com- 
mittee be  adopted,  the  affirmative  prevailed  on  a  viva  voce 
vote. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Leg- 
islative Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  amendment 
proposed  by  Mr.  ISTorris  of  Portsmouth  for  the  amendment  of 
•article  six,  part  two,  of  the  Constitution,  with  reference  to 
providing  the  means  to  defray  the  public  charges  of  govern- 
ment, reported  the  same  in  the  following  new  draft  and 
recommended  its  adoption: 

"Resolved,  That  article  six,  part  two,  of  the  Constitution  be 
amended  so  that  it  shall  read: 

"AKT.  6.  The  public  charges  of  government  or  any  part 
thereof  may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon  polls,  estates,  and 
other  classes  of  property;  and  there  shall  be  a  valuation  of 
the  estates  within  the  state  taken  anew  once  in  every  five 
years,  at  least,  and  as  much  oftener  as  the  general  court  shall 
order." 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord — It  was  the  design  of  the  commit- 
tee to  so  frame  this  amendment  that  it  would  certainly  cover 
inheritances  and  franchises.  Now  I  desire  to  be  certain  that 
it  does.  Professor  Colby  expresses  some  doubt  as  to  whether 
it  does  in  fact  cover  inheritances,  and  for  the  purpose  of  ex- 
amining it  thoroughly  and  reaching  as  well  as  we  can  a  cer- 
tain conclusion  about  it,  I  move  it  now  lie  upon  the  table  to 
"be  taken  up  at  some  future  time  when  this  question  may  be 
fairly  considered.  What  we  desire  is,  to  frame  the  amend- 
ment in  such  a  way  that  it  will  authorize  the  legislature  to 
«nact  a  law  providing  for  the  taxation  of  franchises  and  in- 
heritances. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Whatever  doubt  the  gentleman 
from  Hanover,  Mr.  Colby,  has  upon  that  subject  I  would  like 
to  have  him  state.  I  would  also  ask  the  gentleman  from  Con- 


596     JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

cord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  whether  there  can  be  any  doubt  that  fran- 
chises and  inheritances  are  property.  The  amendment  says 
that  the  expenses  of  government  shall  be  raised  from  a  man's 
estate  and  other  classes  of  property.  Are  not  franchises  of 
corporations  and  inheritances  which  descend  classes  of  prop- 
erty? If  not,  why  not? 

Mr.  Colby  of  Hanover — The  chairman  of  the  Committee 
on  Legislative  Department  having  done  me  the  honor  to  ask 
me  to  examine  certain  adjudicated  cases  bearing  upon  this 
subject,  I  have  reread  hastily  the  case  of  Curry  vs.  Spencer, 
in  the  61st  N.  H.,  and  the  Express  company  cases  in  the  60th 
1ST.  H.,  with  the  result  that  when  the  report  of  the  committee 
was  made  known  to  me  a  few  moments  ago  I  had  a  lingering 
doubt  whether  the  language  of  the  proposed  amendment  was 
certain  to  effect  the  object  sought — taxation  of  inheritances. 
That  doubt,  whether  well  based  or  not,  arises  from  the  fact 
that  our  supreme  court,  as  may  be  inferred  from  the  case  of 
Curry  vs.  Spencer,  may  regard  a,  tax  on  legacies  and  suc- 
cessions not  as  a  tax  on  property,  but  as  a  tax  on  a  civil  right 
or  privilege.  Perhaps  the  language  of  the  proposed  amend- 
ment will  prove  to  need  no  change  whatever  view  may  be 
taken  of  such  a  tax,  but  I  am  not  prepared  to  express  an  opin- 
ion until  I  have  had  opportunity  to  examine  more  thoroughly 
the  decision  in  that  case.  The  importance  of  the  subject,  as 
the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  has  said,  suggests 
the  wisdom  of  deliberate  action. 

Mr.  Cullen  of  Portsmouth — It  looks  to  me  as  though  this 
house  has  been  deceived  and  misled.  A  member  of  the  house 
told  us  at  the  time  that  the  proposed  amendment  offered  by 
Mr.  Ham  of  Portsmouth  was  before  the  Convention  on  a  re- 
port of  the  committee  that  it  was  "inexpedient  to  recom- 
mend," that  the  amendment  was  embraced  in  this  other.  Now 
a  learned  gentleman  gets  up  and  says  there  is  some  doubt 
about  it.  Considering  the  statement  made  by  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  with  reference  to  the  effect  of  this 
bill  and  the  doubt  which  is  now  raised,  I  feel  as  if  the  Conven- 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  597 

tioii  has  been  deceived.    I  am  in  favor  of  an  inheritance  tax. 
It  is  in  the  line  of  progress. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  will  say  to  the  gentleman  from 
Portsmouth  that  the  committee  is  unanimously  in  favor  of 
reaching  the  result  desired  by  the  gentleman  from  Ports- 
mouth. There  is  no  difference  in  the  committee  with  refer- 
ence to  the  object  sought.  The  only  difference  is  as  to  what  is 
the  best  phraseology  in  view  of  the  language  of  the  decisions 
of  our  courts. 

Mr.  Cullen  of  Portsmouth — The  language  of  the  resolution 
offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Portsmouth,  Mr.  Ham,  was  not 
a  bit  ambiguous.  It  said  "inheritance  tax,"  and  under  that 
there  is  no  doubt  that  an  inheritance  tax  could  be  laid.  It 
seems  very  strange  if  the  gentlemen,  with  all  their  legal  learn- 
ing, could  not  frame  an  amendment  about  which  there  could 
be  no  doubt.  I  do  not  desire  to  see  this  Convention  buncoed. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  made  my  inquiry  with  all  due 
respect  to  the  distinguished  jurist  from  Hanover,  Mr.  Colby. 
I  wish  to  be  informed  whether  there  was  any  doubt  in  the 
minds  of  the  committee  whether  franchises  are  a  class  of  prop- 
erty. 

I  beg  leave  also  to>  say  to  the  gentleman  from  Portsmouth, 
Mr.  Cullen,  that  I  believe  that  franchises  of  corporations  are 
property,  and  that  when  property  descends  from  one  person  to 
another  there  is  in  that  transfer  what  all  reasonable  persons 
should  call  a  class  of  property.  Of  course,  if  the  Convention 
deems  it  important  to  enumerate  certain  classes  of  taxable 
property,  it  is  open  to  any  gentleman  to  move  to  insert  "fran- 
chises and  inheritances/'  but  I  do  not  think  it  is  necessary.  I 
am  very  clear  in  my  own  mind  on  that  subject.  My  attention 
was  called  to  it  by  some  delegate  who  asked  what  should  be 
the  language  to  be  used  so  that  the  legislature  instead  of  being 
limited  as  it  has  been  held  to  be  theoretically  in  imposing 
taxes,  could  have  the  power  to  impose  in  its  discretion  any 
kind  of  tax  under  heaven  or  known  among  civilized  men,  and 


598      JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

I  expressed  the  opinion  that  if,  in  addition  to  polls  and  estates, 
the  legislature  was  authorized  to  tax  all  classes  of  property  it 
would  meet  the  situation.  It  never  has  been  held  that  prop- 
erty could  not  be  classed  for  taxation;  and  the  use  of  the 
words,  "All  classes  of  property,"  in  my  judgment,  covers  the 
whole  ground.  The  legislature  can  classify  franchises  as  one 
class  of  property  and  inheritances  as  another  class  of  prop- 
erty, and  can  impose  just  what  taxes  they  see  fit  to  impose  on 
the  different  classes.  I  believe  the  language  of  the  committee 
is  entirely  sufficient. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord — It  is  to  be  regretted  that  any 
gentleman  should  feel  that  the  committee  has  attempted  to 
"bunco"  this  Convention.  With  respect  to  the  subject  matter 
they  are  in  accord  and  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Ports- 
mouth. They  are  endeavoring  to  secure  the  same  end.  I 
have  no  doubt  but  that  the  words  used  include  "inheritances 
and  franchises,"  and  I  did  not  think  until  my  attention  was 
called  to  it  that  the  case  of  Curry  vs.  Spencer  went  so  far  as 
to  create  the  doubt  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Hanover, 
Mr.  Colby.  But  to  remove  all  doubt  and  make  it  certain  that 
the  object  we  are  seeking  to  accomplish  is  attained,  I  think  it 
best  to  suspend  action  upon  it  until  it  is  made  certain,  and  to 
add,  if  necessary,  additional  words  to  more  clearly  express  the 
intention  that  "franchises  and  inheritances"  may  be  taxed. 
One  objection  to  using  those  particular  words  is  that,  by  spe- 
cially naming  "franchises  and  inheritances,"  other  classes 
that  should  be  included  and  would  be  included  under  the  gen- 
eral term,  "all  classes  of  property,"  might  be  held  to  be  ex- 
cluded. Therefore,  the  committee  thought  the  words  sug- 
gested "all  classes  of  property"  much  better,  as  they  included 
those  classes  and  might,  if  necessary,  include  others  which 
should  be  subject  to  taxation.  The  language  used  was  satis- 
factory to  the  committee,  and  I  supposed  it  met  the  approval 
of  Judge  Blodgett  and  Professor  Colby,  and  accomplished  the 
object  we  were  trying  to  secure.  I  am  perfectly  willing  to 
have  the  resolution  go  to  Senator  Chandler's  committee  to  be 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  599 

reported  back  in  the  form  it  is  to  be  sent  to  the  people;  and  if 
additional  words  are  necessary,  the  committee  can  recommend 
them. 

Therefore,  I  suggest  that  the  report  of  the  Committee  on 
Legislative  Department  be  adopted,  and  if,  later,  it  is  thought 
those  words  are  essential  they  can  be  added. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover — Inasmuch  as  by  the  addition  of 
three  words  this  amendment  can  be  made  certain,  I  should 
think  that  they  had  better  be  added  now.  All  that  would  be 
necessary  would  be  to  add  the  words  franchises  and  inher- 
itances" so  that  it  would  read,  "franchises  and  inheritances 
and  all  other  classes  of  property/7  That  removes  all  doubt. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord — Instead  of  those  words  I  suggest 
that  the  present  language  be  retained,  and  then  these  words 
added:  "including  franchises  and  inheritances."  That  will 
not  exclude  other  classes. 

Mr.  McAllister  of  Manchester — I  move  the  resolution  be 
amended  by  adding  to  it  the  words,  "including  franchises  and 
inheritances." 

Mr.  Rogers  of  Tilton — I  have  been  unable  to  hear  all  that 
was  said  down  in  front  in  regard  to  this  question.  I  had 
something  to  do  about  the  case  of  Curry  vs.  Spencer.  That 
was  decided  after  the  express  cases  which  have  been  referred 
to  here.  As  I  understand  the  reason  why  that  law  was  held  to 
be  unconstitutional  was  because  it  was  double  taxation — in 
both  cases,  in  the  express  cases  and  in  the  case  of  Curry  vs. 
Spencer.  An  estate  is  liable  to  taxation  in  the  hands  of  an 
administrator  or  executor,  and  then  you  tax  it  again  when  it 
is  distributed  to  the  heirs,  and  that  would  make  double  taxa- 
tion. The  question  whether  the  amendment  recommended  by 
the  committee  as  amended  by  the  motion  of  the  gentleman 
from  Manchester,  Mr.  McAllister,  is  going  to  be  broad  enough 
to  cover  that  objection,  when  at  the  same  time  we  have  a  pro- 
vision remaining  in  the  Constitution  which  prevents  double 


600     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

taxation,  should1  be  carefully  considered.  As  I  understand, 
that  was  the  ground  on  which  the  taxation  of  incomes  and 
the  taxation  of  estates  descending  was  held  to  be  unconstitu- 
tional. 

Mr.  Mies  of  Concord — In  spite  of  the  statement  of  my  ven- 
erable and  learned  friend,  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Chandler,  that  there  is  no  reasonable  doubt  that  "all  classes 
of  property"  includes  inheritances,  I  must  confess  to  a  doubt. 
I  admit  that  perhaps  it  is  an  unreasonable  doubt,  but  it  seems 
that  the  courts-  have  entertained  such  doubt,  and  they  have 
entertained  other  doubts  which  members  of  the  bar  deemed 
unreasonable.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  thing  should  be  made 
clear.  At  the  same  time,  it  seems  to  me  also  that  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  McAllister,  does 
not  make  it  clear.  It  would  not  include  devises  or  bequests, 
but  simply  the  property  which  descends  from  an  intestate 
estate,  property  to  which  one  succeeds  as  heir,  and  not  prop- 
erty which  is  obtained  by  bequest  or  devise. 

I  suppose  there  is  a  desire  to  give  the  legislature  permission 
to  impose  an  income  tax  if  they  wish  to  do  so,  and  there  would 
be  some  doubt  in  my  mind  as  to  whether  the  language  of  this 
proposed  amendment  would  cover  that.  In  view  of  all  these 
doubts  I  do  not  think  we  are  in  a  position  at  this  time  to  settle 
the  matter,  but  it  seems  to  me  much  better  if  Mr.  McAllister's 
amendment  be  drawn  up  in  writing  and  the  whole  thing 
referred  to  the  committee,  so  that  they  could  consider  this 
matter  again,  and  that  we  may  know  exactly  what  we  wish, 
and  exactly  what  we  are  saying  or  meaning,  when  we  make 
this  amendment  or  reject  it. 

Mr.  Eogers  of  Tilton — I  do  not  rise  to  make  a  motion,  but 
to  suggest  that  this  matter  be  recommitted  to  the  Committee 
on  Legislative  Department,  and  see  if  they  cannot  report 
something  about  which  there  can  be  no  doubt.  I  will,  how- 
ever, make  the  motion  that  the  resolution  be  recommitted  to 
the  same  committee  from  which  it  came  for  further  considera- 
tion by  them. 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  601 

The  motion  prevailed  and  the  resolution  was  recommitted 
to  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department. 

Mr.  Blodgett  of  Franklin  and  Mr.  Little  of  Manchester,, 
from  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department,  to  whom 
was  referred  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Mies  of  Concord,  relative 
to  the  permanency  of  the  supreme  and  superior  courts,  recom- 
mended its  adoption. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question,  upon  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of  the 
committee. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  do  not  yield  to  any  man  in  my  ad- 
miration and  veneration  for  the  courts  of  law,  but  I  do  not 
think  that  any  court  which  has  been  devised,  or  which  in  the 
future  may  be  devised,  should  be  made  permanent  and  that 
the  acts  organizing  them  should  be  absolutely  irrevocable  or 
revocable  only  by  an  amendment  of  the  Constitution. 

Our  courts,  have  the  support  of  the  people,  and  they  have 
the  admiration  of  the  people,  but  in  the  history  of  this  state 
there  have  been  several  courts  of  different  capacity  and  of 
different  orders.  This  very  system  which  we  have  now  has 
been  tried  once  in  the  history  of  this  state  and  has  been  re- 
pealed. We  went  from  a  court  constituted  almost  exactly  as 
our  present  courts  are  to  one  supreme  court  of  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire.  Having  tried  that  for  a  series  of  years,  we 
are  back  again  upon  a  dual  court  system,  but  I  do  not  believe 
that  any  court  should  be  put  beyond  the  control  of  the  people. 

For  one,  I  am  opposed  to  this  amendment  upon  the  ground, 
and  solely  upon  the  ground,  that  the  court  should  never  be 
greater  than  its  masters.  I  don't  know  as  I  need  to  say  any- 
thing more.  We  have  had  a  change  back  and  forth  in  this 
state,  and  now  simply  because  we  have  dual  courts  I  do  not 
think  we  ought  to  make  them  permanent,  especially  as  we 
have  not  yet  had  the  existing  system  running  long  enough  to 
know  that  it  is  satisfactory.  I  think  we  ought  to  leave  this 


602    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

matter  where  it  can  be  managed  by  the  chosen  representatives 
of  the  people  when  they  think  it  wise  to  change  the  courts. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — At  the  last  session  of  our 
legislature,  when  the  bill  providing  for  a  dual  court  was  intro- 
duced, I  was  in  favor  of  it.  I  believed  in  it  then,  and  I  believe 
in  it  now,  but  I  do  not  believe  in  putting  it  beyond  the  control 
of  the  people,  to  change  that  court,  should  exigencies  arise  to 
induce  the  people  to  believe  it  to  be  for  their  interest  to  do  so. 
In  the  history  of  our  state,  the  courts  have  been  changed  fre- 
quently, and  no  injurious  effects  have  arisen  from  such 


There  was  a  great  opposition  to  the  dual  court  system  at 
the  last  session  of  the  legislature,  when  more  than  thirty 
prominent  members  of  the  bar  from  different  parts  of  the 
state  appeared  before  the  judiciary  committee  to  object  to  it, 
but  a  very  large  majority  of  the  members  of  that  legislature, 
without  regard  to  political  affiliations,  were  in  favor  of  such  a 
system.  This  system  has  been  in  force  but  a  little  over  a  year. 
It  has  not  yet  been  tried  long  enough  to  enable  our  people  to 
tell  whether  it  is  the  system  they  always  want,  or  not. 

The  people  who  came  to  the  last  legislature  opposing  this 
system,  are  now,  perhaps,  better  satisfied  with  it,  and,  perhaps, 
they  now  think  that  there  will  never  be  occasion  to  change  it, 
but,  if  dissatisfaction  should  arise,  and  the  people  of  this 
state  want  another  court,  or  want  to  change  this,  I  do  not 
think  it  should  be  put  beyond  the  power  of  the  legislature  to 
do  it.  I  think  we  are  perfectly  safe  as  we  now  are,  and  I  be- 
lieve in  letting  well  enough  alone. 

Mr.  Little  of  Manchester — This  proposition  is  in  line  with 
a  resolution  unanimously  adopted  by  the  bar  association  of  the 
state.  It  is  also  in  line  with  planks  in  the  platforms  of  the 
two  leading  political  parties  of  the  state.  I  had  not  supposed 
that  this  subject  would  lead  to  as  much  of  a  discussion  here. 
When  it  was  brought  before  the  Committee  on  Legislative  De- 
partment, our  distinguished  chairman,  who  is  not  present  this 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  60S 

afternoon,  expressed  himself  with  some  earnestness  in  regard 
to  it.  I  have  no  doubt  that  if  he  were  present,  he  would  wish 
to  be  heard,  and  I  would  move,  sir,  that  the  matter  be  laid 
upon  the  table  and  made  a  special  order  for  to-morrow  after- 
noon at  2  o'clock. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Have  you  any  objection  to  go- 
ing on  with  the  debate  this  afternoon? 

Mr.  Little — No,  I  have  no  objection  to  that,  but  it  seems  to 
me,  in  fairness  to  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  that  the  mat- 
ter ought  not  to  be  determined  until  he  can  have  an  oppor- 
tunity to  be  heard.  I  will  withdraw  my  motion  for  the  time 
being. 

Mr.  Xiles  of  Concord — I  trust  the  gentleman  from  Man- 
chester will  not  withdraw  his  motion,  as  I  had  risen  to  make 
the  same  motion.  It  is  obvious  there  is  no  quorum  here,  and 
if  a  division  were  taken  it  would  be  disclosed.  As  I  regard 
this  as  one  of  at  least  two  of  the  most  important  questions 
before  the  Convention  I  should  not  want  it  debated  before 
half  a  house.  I  think  it  would  be  well  to  postpone  the  discus- 
sion of  this  question  until  a  determinate  time. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Before  the  subject  passes,  for 
this  afternoon,  from  the  attention  of  the  Convention,  I  would 
like  to  ask  the  members  of  the  committee  whether  there  wa& 
any  difference  of  opinion  on  the  question  whether  both  courts 
should  be  made  permanent  and  placed  beyond  the  reach  of 
the  legislature,  or  only  one.  I  am  willing  to  place  the  one  su- 
preme court  of  this  state  beyond  the  legislature's  reach  so  far 
as  the  justices  are  concerned  who  may  at  any  time  occupy  the 
bench,  but  my  doubt  is  whether  an  inferior  court  should  be  so 
protected — whether  not  only  the  superior  court  which  is  the 
trial  court  and  the  other  inferior  courts  should  be  so  pro- 
tected. 

I  am  conservative  with  reference  to  our  judicial  system,  and 
I  would  not  be  willing  to  adopt  the  radical  views  expressed 


604    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

by  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  or  the  gentleman 
from  Somersworth,  Mr.  Edgerly.  I  think  it  would  have  been 
a  misfortune  if,  in  the  early  dJays  of  this  republic,  Chief  Jus- 
tice Marshall  and  his  federal  associates  had  been  turned  out 
of  office  by  an  act  of  congress.  They  remained  on  the  bench 
after  the  Democratic  party  came  into  power.  Although  they 
were  hated  by  that  party,  they  stayed  in  office  and  laid  down 
the  most  important  principles  that  have  been  asserted  in  con- 
nection with  the  government  and  constitution  of  the  United 
States,  and  they  established  as  a  part  of  the  American  funda- 
mental law  those  great  principles  which  nobody  now  is  op- 
posed to  and!  which  are  a  credit  and  honor  to  the  American 
people  and  have  gone  very  far  towards  perpetuating  our  pres- 
ent form  of  government. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  I  shall  be  glad  to  help  place  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  legislature,  and  of  such  public  sentiment  as 
may  at  any  time  make  itself  felt  in  the  legislature  of  Xew 
Hampshire,  the  one  supreme  court  of  the  state  and  the  jus- 
tices thereof. 

My  friend  from  Somersworth,  Mr.  Edgerly,  and  my  friend 
from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  have  undoubtedly  at  times  felt  filled 
with  wrath  against  the  courts  and  have  been  in  a  mood  to  tear 
them  down.  I  have  myself  fulminated  against  the  courts,  but 
I  never  have  really  felt  that  therefore  the  legislature  of  the 
state  ought  to  be  allowed  to  come  here  and  reorganize  the 
courts,  to  tear  them  down  and  make  new  courts. 

I  have  witnessed  two  or  three  revolutions  of  that  kind,  Mr. 
President,  and  I  am  free  to  say  that  I  think  it  would  have 
been  better  for  the  people  of  this  state  if  the  court  had  not 
been  overturned  in  1855,  when  the  Whigs  and  Pree-Soilers 
overcame  the  Democratic  party  and  took  possession  of  the 
state  government.  I  do  not  believe  this  was  for  the  welfare  of 
the  state.  I  cannot  even  say  that  it  was  for  the  welfare  of  the 
Eepublican  party  which  did  it.  Therefore  I  say  to  the  com- 
mittee and  to  the  Convention  that  I  am  willing  to  vote  for 
this  proposition  embodying  in  the  Constitution  one  supreme 
•court  of  this  state  and  making  it  permanent.  My  doubt  is 


TUESDAY,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  605 

whether  we  ought  to  do  the  same  thing  with  reference  to  the 
lower  tribunal  called  the  superior  court.  I  again  ask  the  ques- 
tion which  I  started  with,  whether  in  the  committee  there  was 
any  difference  of  opinion  on  the  subject  of  placing  both  courts 
beyond  legislative  control? 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  rise  to  correct  a  misapprehension 
which  the  gentleman  from  Concord  may  have  given  you.  I 
have  no  indignation,  righteous  or  otherwise,  against  either  of 
the  courts  or  any  of  the  justices  of  this  state.  I  honor  both 
courts,  and  so  far  as  I  know  them,  their  judicial  conduct.  My 
position  is  simply  this.  They  are  the  creatures  of  the  state 
and  the  people  of  the  state,  and  the  people  of  the  state  should 
keep  in  their  hands  the  control  of  the  courts  and  not  put  it 
out  of  their  hands.  That  is  all  there  is  to  it. 

Xow  the  gentleman  is  unquestionably  right  in  regard  to  the 
value  of  Chief  Justice  Marshall  as  head  of  the  supreme  court 
of  the  United  States,  and  it  is  to  the  credit  of  the  different 
parties  that  he  was  maintained  there. 

I  know  of  no  reason  why  the  courts  existing  in  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  should  not  be  maintained  in  their  organiza- 
tions until  the  end  of  time  perhaps.  My  only  claim  is  that 
the  people  should  retain  for  themselves  the  power,  if  it  be- 
comes necessary  on  account  of  the  conduct  of  the  judges, 
which  may  not  come  under  the  classification  of  immorality,  or 
other  reasons  of  disposing  of  the  judges  given  in  the  resolu- 
tion; if  they  become  entirely  hostile  to  the  will  of  the  people, 
to  change  them  and  put  in  their  places  men  who  will  dis- 
charge the  duties  of  the  courts  in  accordance  with  the  highest 
ideals  of  the  people  and  for  the  good  of  the  state. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Has  it  ever  been  thought  that 
the  congress  of  the  United  States  could  pass  a  law  about  the 
supreme  court  of  the  United  States  which  would  turn  out  the 
existing  justices? 

Mr.  Baker — I  do  not  know  as  that  idea  has  been  put  for- 


606    JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ward,  but  I  do  not  know  anything  in  the  Constitution  which 
would  prevent. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — My  impression  is,  it  is  univer- 
sally conceded  that  an  act  of  congress  of  that  kind  would  be 
unconstitutional,  whereas  in  this  state  we  know  it  is  not,  be- 
cause on  two  occasions  during  my  lifetime  we  have  had  the 
supreme  court  of  the  state  turned  out  from  their  offices. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Whether  the  construction  of  the  Con- 
stitution of  the  United  States  given  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord  be  correct  or  not,  it  never  has  been  determined,  and 
the  language  of  the  Constitution  is  that  there  shall  be  one 
supreme  court  and  such  inferior  courts  as  congress  may  di- 
rect. Now  it  is  impossible  for  congress  to  destroy  the  su- 
preme court.  Whether  it  can  destroy  the  inferior  courts  is  a 
question  which,  of  course,  has  never  been  determined. 

The  President — The  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  of  the  committee,  the  gentleman  from  Manches- 
ter having  withdrawn  his  motion. 

Mr.  Mies  of  Concord — If  the  gentleman  from  Manchester 
will  not,  I  will  renew  that  motion  that  the  resolution  re- 
ported by  the  committee  lay  upon  the  table  and  be  made  the 
special  order  for  to-morrow  at  2  o'clock. 

The  motion  being  stated  by  the  chair,  prevailed  on  a  viva 
voce  vote. 

Mr.  Colbath  of  Barnstead,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Leg- 
islative Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Ledoux  of  Nashua  to  amend  article  five,  part  two,  of  the 
Constitution  by  adding  thereto  a  section  relative  to  the  refer- 
ence of  laws  passed  by  the  general  court  to  the  people  for  con- 
sideration and  to  make  effective  the  initiative  and  referendum, 
reported  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  this  particular 
amendment." 


TUESDAV,  DECEMBER  16,  1902.  607 

The  report  was  accepted.  The  question  being  stated,  shall 
the  resolution  of  the  committee  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Clyde  of  Hudson — I  move  the  resolution  be  referred  to 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  be  taken  up  with  the  special 
order  relating  to  initiative  and  referendum,  which  has  been 
referred  to  that  committee. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Clyde  of  Hudson  being  stated  by  the 
chair,  was  declared  lost  on  a  viva  voce  vote. 

Mr.  Cullen  of  Portsmouth — There  is  a  great  deal  to  be  said 
on  this  question.  I  do  not  doubt  but  there  are  a  number  here 
who  would  like  to  be  heard  upon  it.  It  is  a  question  that  is  in 
line  with  progressive  legislation  at  the  present  time,  and  a 
large  number  of  bodies  of  working  men,  both  state  and  na- 
tional, have  declared  themselves  in  favor  of  such  legislation. 
As  the  attendance  appears  to  be  small,  I  would  ask  and  move 
that  the  matter  be  laid  over  until  some  other  time.  I  myself 
have  an  amendment  to  this  measure,  but  I  do  not  think  it 
should  come  up  now.  I  move  that  it  be  laid  over  as  unfin- 
ished business. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Will  the  President  kindly  state 
to  the  Convention  what  the  order  is  with  reference  to  resolu- 
tions of  a  like  character  with  this.  If  there  are  other  resolu- 
tions I  think  the  Convention  will  be  willing  to  consider  them 
together. 

Mr.  Clyde  of  Hudson — I  introduced  a  resolution  before 
this  body  and  moved  to  make  it  a  special  order  to  follow  the 
resolution  on  trusts  introduced  by  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Chandler,  and  my  motion  was  carried  and  made 
such  special  order.  This  is  a  similar  resolution  to  the  one  I 
introduced.  I  feel  that  it  is  an  important  matter  and  some- 
thing demanded  by  the  organized  labor  of  this  country.  We 
have  considered  woman's  suffrage  and  other  questions  here, 
and  I  think  we  should  do  organized  labor  the  courtesy  of  con- 


608    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

sidering  this   matter   thoroughly  in   the    Convention   or   in 
Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  find  that  I  get  along  better  in 
legislative  bodies  by  asking  unanimous  consent.  I  ask  the 
unanimous  consent  of  this  Convention  that  this  resolution 
may  be  considered  when  Mr.  Clyde's  resolution  is  considered. 

The  President — If  there  is  no  objection  to  the  suggestion 
of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  by  unanimous 
consent  the  resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Nashua, 
Mr.  Ledoux,  will  be  considered  in  connection  with  the  resolu- 
tions which  are  numbered  31  and  37,  namely,  the  two  resolu- 
tions introduced  by  Mr.  Clyde  of  Hudson. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clement  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902. 
The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 
Prayer  was  offered  by  the  chaplain. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  McAllister  of  Manchester,  the  rules  were 
so  far  suspended  that  the  reading  of  the  journal  was  dispensed 
with. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster  offered  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That,  hereafter,  debate,  both  in  Convention  and 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  be  limited  to  five  minutes,  and  that 
no  member  shall  speak  a  second  time  on  any  question,  until 
every  member  who  desires  to  speak  has  spoken  once;  pro- 
vided, that  the  author  of  the  measure  under  consideration 
shall  have  ten  minutes,  instead'  of  five  minutes  assigned  him/' 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  609 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Clyde  of  Hudson,  the  resolutions  of  that 
gentleman,  and  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Ledoux  of  Nashua,  re- 
lating to  the  initiative  and  referendum,  were  recalled  from 
Committee  of  the  Whole  and  referred  to  the  Committee  on 
the  Legislative  Department. 

Mr.  Rogers  of  Tilton,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the 
resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  to  amend  part  second 
of  the  Constitution,  title  "Executive  Power,  Governor,"  re- 
ported the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  at  this  time  to  amend  the 
Constitution  as  proposed  in  the  resolution." 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  resolution  adopted. 

Mr.  Buxton  of  Boscawen,  from  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights 
and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolu- 
tion introduced  by  Mr.  Madden  of  Keene  relating  to  gover- 
nor's council,  reported  the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved^  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitu- 
tion as  proposed." 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  resolution  adopted. 

Mr.  Russell  of  Plymonth,  from  the  Committee  on  Future 
Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  Other  Proposed 
Amendments,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  entitled 
"Amendments  to  the  State  Constitution,  part  second,  articles 
forty-seven,  fifty-three,  fifty-six  and  sixty-six,"  reported  the 
resolution  in  the  following  new  draft  and  recommended  its 
adoption: 

"Resolved,  That  article  forty-seven,  part  second,  be  amended 
by  adding  to  it  the  words  'Provided  that  no  person  shall  be 
so  nominated  and  recommended  until  he  shall  have  been  ex- 
amined and  found  duly  qualified  by  an  examining  board  ap- 
39 


610    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

pointed  by  the  governor/  so  that  the  said  article  forty-seven 
will  read  as  follows: 

"ARTICLE  47.  The  captains  and  subalterns  in  the  respec- 
tive regiments  shall  be  nominated  and  recommended  by  the 
field  officers  to  the  governor,  who  is  to  issue  their  commissions 
immediately  on  receipt  of  such  recommendation;  provided, 
that  no  person  shall  be  so  nominated  and  recommended  until 
he  shall  have  been  examined  and  found  duly  qualified  by  an 
examining  board  appointed  by  the  governor. 

"That  article  sixty-six,  part  second,  be  amended  by  striking 
out  the  words  'commissary-general/  so  that  the  said  article 
sixty-six  will  read  as  follows: 

"ARTICLE  66.  The  secretary  and  treasurer  shall  be  chosen 
by  joint  ballot  of  senators  and  representatives  assembled  in 
one  room." 

Mr.  Russell  of  Plymouth — Mr.  President,  I  move  that  this 
resolution  be  adopted  and,  if  in  order,  I  would  like  to  say  a 
word  in  explanation  of  it.  I  have  an  acute  realization  of  the 
fact  that  the  time  of  this  Convention  is  not  only  valuable  but 
limited,  and  that  the  questions  yet  to  come  before  it  for  con- 
sideration are  many  and  weighty.  In  comparison  with  them 
the  matter  involved  in  the  report  of  this  committee  is  of 
minor  consequence.  Hence  I  shall  ask  your  indulgence  only 
for  a  very  few  moments.  As  has  been  truly  said,  "If  the  fram- 
ers  of  this  Constitution  did  not  build  better  than  they  knew, 
they  certainly  did  build  wisely  and  well."  It  is  apparent  they 
believed  a  certain  place  in  any  scheme  of  government  should 
be  conceded  to  the  militia.  This  is  clearly  shown  by  their  in- 
sertion in  the  Bill  of  Rights  of  article  twenty-four,  declaring 
"A  well-regulated  militia  is  the  proper,  natural  and  sure  de- 
fense of  a  state;"  and  the  three  articles  following  it  expressive 
of  their  dread  of  standing  armies,  their  determination  that 
the  military  should  always  be  subordinate  to  the  civil  power, 
and  their  resolve  that  soldiers  should  never  be  quartered  in  a 
manner  burdensome  to  the  people.  In  part  second,  article 
forty-five,  is  a  proviso  for  the  appointment  of  general  and  field 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  611 

officers.  Then  comes  article  forty-seven,  which  it  is  proposed 
to  amend  by  providing  that  captains  and  lieutenants  shall 
stand  the  test  of  an  examination  by  a  board  appointed  by  the 
governor  before  he  is  required  to  issue  their  commissions.  As 
the  article  reads  at  present  the  commander-in-chief  is  de- 
prived of  the  power  of  choice.  He  is  compelled  to  commis- 
sion whoever  is  nominated  by  the  field  officers.  Now  the 
purpose  of  this  amendment  is  to  oblige  every  candidate  for  a 
captaincy,  or  a  lieutenancy,  to  establish,  to  some  extent  at 
least,  his  fitness  for  the  position  sought  before  he  can  be 
recommended  for  appointment.  I  assume  that  it  is  the  desire 
of  every  gentleman  present  that  any  military  force  raised  and 
supported  by  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  shall  be  as  efficient 
and  reliable  as  it  is  possible  to  make  it  with  the  present  mod- 
erate appropriation  and  the  infrequent  opportunities  for  in- 
struction and  practice.  Nothing  will  contribute  so  much  to 
this  result  as  well-qualified  company  officers.  I  am  sure  that 
every  veteran  of  the  Civil  war  in  this  Convention  (types  of 
those  patriots  whose  little  bronze  button  is  a  prouder  decora- 
tion than  can  be  conferred  by  any  king,  prince,  or  potentate) 
will  agree  with  me  in  this  assertion.  In  all  armies  in  the 
world  the  company  has  invariably  been  considered  as  the  first, 
or  smallest,  independent  command;  the  captain  being  the  ex- 
ecutive, and  commanding,  drilling,  paying,  and  looking  after 
the  men  composing  his  company.  Not  a  few  military  com- 
manders of  renown  have  recorded  their  conviction  of  the  im- 
portance of  the  company  and  its  commander.  The  late  Gen- 
eral William  Tecumseh  Sherman  (who,  all  must  admit,  had  a 
tolerably  wide  experience  in  commanding  small  bodies  of 
troops  in  time  of  peace  and  large  ones  in  time  of  war)  on  more 
than  one  occasion  stated  that  good  captains  make  good  com- 
panies and  good  companies,  grouped  together  in  the  higher 
units  of  organization,  make  a  good  army.  The  amendment 
proposed  will  do  something  to  secure  these  good  captains, 
with  good  lieutenants  to  assist  them  in  making  good  com- 
panies. 

The  amendment  desired  to  article  sixty-six,  part  second, 


612     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

simply  strikes  out  the  words  "commissary-general/'  It  does 
not  interfere  in  any  way  with  the  other  two  officials  named  in 
the  article  or  the  present  method  of  selecting  them.  Why  the 
commissary-general  was  detailed,  so  to  speak,  for  election  by 
the  general  court,  rather  than  any  other  of  his  associates  in 
the  military  family  of  the  commander-in-chief,  I  have  not 
been  able  to  discover.  As  is  well  known  the  only  two  work- 
ing positions  on  the  governor's  staff  are  those  of  the  adjutant- 
general  and  the  inspector-general;  the  former  performing  not 
only  the  duties  indicated  by  his  title,  but  also  those  of  the 
heads  of  the  quartermaster,  subsistence,  pay,  and  ordnance 
departments;  while  the  latter  makes  an  annual  inspection  of 
each  organization  in  the  National  Guard,  and  of  all  armories, 
books,  reports,  and  military  property  in  their  possession,  re- 
porting their  condition  with  his  recommendations  and  sug- 
gestions. The  remaining  members  of  the  governor's  staff 
have  usually  been  selected  from  gentlemen  of  ability  and 
high  standing,  whose  services  have  been  rendered  in  lines  not 
necessarily  military,  and  whose  presence  in  this  near  relation 
was  agreeable  to  the  chief  magistrate.  Not  many  years  ago  a 
commissary-general  was  elected  whom  the  governor  did  not 
desire,  and  he  made  his  feelings  known  in  language  so  plain 
and  forcible  that  it  appealed  to  the  legislature  sufficiently  to 
induce  them  to  make  a  second  choice  which  was  more  satis- 
factory, and  the  incident  was  closed.  I  am  not  aware  that 
this  friction  between  the  legislative  and  executive  departments 
was  accompanied  by  any  great  shock  to  the  body  politic,  nor 
did  it  "bode  some  strange  eruption  to  our  state."  It  seems, 
however,  only  just  and  equitable  that  the  commissary-general 
should  be  appointed  in  the  same  manner  as  his  comrades,  the 
quartermaster-general,  the  judge-advocate-general,  the  sur- 
geon-general, and  the  not  more  than  eight  or  less  than  four 
aides  with  the  rank  of  colonel  are  appointed;  and  thus  avoid 
an  "inequality,"  to  the  evils  of  which  allusion  has  repeatedly 
been  made  during  this  session. 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  resolution  submitted  b}r 
the  committee  was  adopted. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  613 

Mr.  Briggs  of  Manchester,  from  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the 
amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham  to  strike 
the  word  "subject"  from  article  five  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  and 
insert  the  word  "one"  in  place  thereof,  reported  it  inexpedient 
to  submit  such  an  amendment.  The  committee  was  of  the 
opinion  that  the  framers  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  did  not  use  the 
word  "subject"  in  any  other  sense  than  as  a  reference  to  per- 
sons who  are  subject  to  the  law.  Whale  a  more  apt  word 
might  be  found  to  express  the  idea,  since  the  word  appears 
several  times  in  the  Bill  of  Rights  and  the  Constitution,  to  be 
consistent  several  distinct  and  different  amendments  would 
have  to  be  proposed,  and  the  committee  did  not  think  it  wise 
to  cumber  the  important  questions  to  be  submitted  to  the 
people  by  numerous  amendments  of  this  character.  The  com- 
mittee, therefore,  reported  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  proposed  amendment  be  not  adopted." 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  resolution  adopted. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton,  from  the  Committee  on  Bill  of 
Rights  and  Executive  Department,  submitted  the  following 
report: 

The  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Depart- 
ment, having  had  under  consideration  the  resolutions  intro- 
duced by  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  Mr.  Niles  of  Concord,  and  Mr. 
Colby  of  Hanover  proposing  amendments  to  article  six  of  the 
Bill  of  Rights,  reports  that  article  six  should  be  amended  by 
striking  therefrom  the  word  "evangelical,"  and  inserting 
the  word  "Christian"  in  place  thereof,  and  that  the  word 
"towns"  be  stricken  from  said  section  wherever  it  appears, 
and  that  the  word  "Protestant"  be  stricken  out. 

The  committee  also  recommends  that  the  words  "and  every 
denomination  of  Christians"  be  stricken  from  the  so-called 
Free  Toleration  clause  of  said  article  six,  and  the  words,  "All 
religious  sects  and  denominations"  inserted  in  place  thereof, 
so  that  the  same  as  amended  shall  read: 


614    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

"As  morality  and  piety,  rightly  grounded  on  Christian  prin- 
ciples, will  give  the  best  and  greatest  security  to  government, 
and  will  lay  in  the  hearts  of  men  the  strongest  obligations  to 
due  subjection,  and  as  the  knowledge  of  these  is  most  likely  to 
be  propagated  through  a  society  by  the  institution  of  the 
public  worship  of  the  Deity  and  of  public  instruction  in 
morality  and  religion,  therefore  to  promote  those  important 
purposes,  the  people  of  this  state  have  a  right  to  empower, 
and  do  hereby  fully  empower,  the  legislature  to  authorize, 
from  time  to  time,  the  several  parishes,  bodies  corporate,  or 
religious  societies  within  this  state  to  make  adequate  pro- 
vision, at  their  own  expense,  for  the  support  and  maintenance 
of  public  teachers  of  piety,  religion,  and  morality. 

"Provided,  notwithstanding,  that  the  several  parishes, 
bodies  corporate,  or  religious  societies,  shall  at  all  times  have 
the  exclusive  right  of  electing  their  own  public  teachers  and 
of  contracting  with  them  for  their  support  and  maintenance. 
And  no  person  of  any  one  particular  religious  sect  or  denom- 
ination shall  ever  be  compelled  to  pay  towards  the  support  of 
the  teacher  or  teachers  of  another  persuasion,  sect,  or  denomi- 
nation. 

"All  religious  sects  and  denominations,  demeaning  them- 
selves quietly  and  as  good  subjects  of  the  state,  shall  be 
equally  under  the  protection  of  the  law;  and  no  subordination 
of  any  one  sect  or  denomination  to  another  shall  ever  be  es- 
tablished by  law. 

"And  nothing  herein  shall  be  understood  to  affect  any  for- 
mer contracts  made  for  the  support  of  the  ministry;  but  all 
such  contracts  shall  remain  and  be  in  the  same  state  as  if  this 
Constitution  had  not  been  made." 

The  report  was  accepted.  The  question  being  stated,  "Shall 
the  resolution  of  the  committee  that  the  amendments  recom- 
mended by  the  committee  be  adopted?" 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  move  that  the  report  of  the  committee 
lie  upon  the  table,  be  printed,  and  made  a  special  order  for 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  615 

to-morrow  at  2:30  o'clock.  I  do  this  especially  for  this  reason, 
— because  the  report  is  a  long  one,  and  it  is  not  in  such  shape 
that  the  members  of  the  Convention  can  properly  read  and 
compare  it  with  the  present  Constitution.  It  is  one  of  the 
most  important  subjects  in  a  general  way  which  will  come  be- 
fore the  Convention,  and  we  all  ought  to  have  a  good,  fair 
chance  to  read  its  provisions  and  consider  it. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  dislike  very  much  to  oppose  the 
motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  but  we  must 
all  be  admonished  that  the  end  of  this  session  is  approaching. 
There  is  a  vast  number  of  matters  to  be  considered  yet.  All 
of  these  resolutions  have  been  printed  and  distributed  through 
the  Convention.  I  think  there  is  some  danger  in  postponing 
this  until  to-morrow.  I  wish  the  gentleman  would  withdraw 
his  motion,  and  I  for  one  would  agree  to  take  it  up  this  after- 
noon at  some  appointed  hour  agreeable  to  the  gentleman  from 
Bow.  I  will  say,  however,  I  recognize  the  great  principle  in- 
volved and  if  he,  upon  reflection,  insists  upon  the  motion,  I 
will  not  opose  it. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — There  is  an  additional  reason  why  this 
should  go  over,  because  the  gentleman  from  Hanover,  Mr. 
Colby,  is  not  able  to  be  here  to-day.  I  think  it  is  due  to  him, 
as  a  fellow-member  of  the  committee,  that  we  .should  grant 
this  favor  for  his  sake  if  for  no  other. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Xashua — We  have  before  us  now  the  re- 
port of  the  committee  and  it  is  unanimous.  It  seems  to  me 
it  is  perfectly  clear,  and  I  believe  every  member  of  this  Con- 
vention understands  it.  I  regret  exceedingly  that  the  gentle- 
man from  Hanover,  who  offered  the  resolution  with  reference 
to  this  matter,  is  unable  to  be  here,  but  it  seems  to  me  the 
business  of  this  Convention  must  be  considered  and  disposed 
of  as  promptly  as  possible.  I  believe  this  Convention  is  ready 
now  to  meet  and  decide  this  question  and  to  act  upon  the 
unanimous  report  of  one  of  its  leading  committees  as  it  ever 
will  be.  I  sincerely  hope  we  will  take  it  up  now  and  dispose 
of  it. 


616     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lisbon — I  saw  the  gentleman  from  Hanover, 
Mr.  Colby,  this  morning  relative  to  this  matter.  He  had 
made  an  examination  of  the  report  of  the  committee,  and  he 
desired  me  to  state  to  the  Convention  that  he  could  not  be 
here  to-day,  but  that  through  an  inadvertence  the  resolution 
which  he  proposed  was  handed  to  the  secretary  in  an  imper- 
fect form  and  he  did  not  care  to  press  it,  and  that  he  exam- 
ined the  report  of  the  committee  and  concurred  in  the  same. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  was  stated  by  the  chair, 
and  on  viva  voce  vote  was  declared  lost. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  think  it  would  be  wise  to  make 
this  a  special  order  for  the  afternoon,  and  I  move  that  it  be 
made  a  special  order  for  this  afternoon,  following  the  other 
special  order. 

I  am  quite  ready,  so  far  as  I  am  concerned,  to  take  the  mat- 
ter up  now;  but  I  supposed  the  question  was  to  be  debated  by 
the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  and  in  fairness  to  him, 
if  he  desires,  I  thought  that  it  would  be  well  to  postpone  the 
matter  until  this  afternoon.  But  if  there  is  no  demand  for 
that  I  will  withdraw  my  motion. 

The  President — The  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Little- 
ton, Mr.  Aldrich,  is  withdrawn,  and  the  question  is,  "Shall  the 
resolution  of  the  Committee  on  the  Bill  of  Eights  and  Execu- 
tive Department  be  adopted?" 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen  of  the 
Convention:  I  am  under  the  necessity  of  asking  for  the  re- 
port itself,  as  it  has  been  concluded  not  to  print  it. 

I  yield,  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  to  no  man  here  in 
my  admiration  for  the  Christian  religion  or  my  admiration 
for  the  principles  which  are  known  as  Christian.  But  I  be- 
lieve absolutely,  with  the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr. 
Aldrich,  in  his  remarks  the  other  day,  that  Christianity  means 
equal  rights  for  everybody  and  all.  I  believe  that  every  citi- 
zen of  this  state  should  have  equal  rights  without  any  sug- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  617 

gestion  of  opposition  to  his  thought  upon  religious  subjects, 
and  I  believe  that  all  objectionable  words  which  have  been 
in  this  article  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  for  a  hundred  years  ought 
to  be  stricken  out  as  the  committee  has  stricken  them  out  in 
its  reported  amendment.  If  no  new  words  had  been  inserted 
I  should  not  have  raised  my  voice  at  this  time  in  opposition  to 
the  report  of  the  committee. 

There  are  those,  as  you  know,  in  this  state  who  are  not 
known  as  "evangelical"  in  religion,  and  there  are  those  who 
are  not  Protestants.  The  two  words  the  committee  propose  to 
strike  out,  and^hat  their  report  recommends  is  equally  favor- 
able to  every  kind  of  Christians  known  under  the  sun.  Thus 
far  it  is  undoubtedly  worthy  our  support  and  our  admiration. 
But  they  have  recommended  the  insertion  in  place  of  the 
word  "evangelical,"  the  word  "Christian."  Now  I  do  not  be- 
lieve that  any  gentleman  within  the  sound  of  my  voice  has  so 
little  faith  in  Christianity  that  he  thinks  that  insertion  in 
the  Bill  of  Eights  of  our  Constitution  is  necessary  to  maintain 
Christianity  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  If  there  is  such 
he  has  less  faith  in  Christianity  and  in  the  people  of  this  state 
than  I  have. 

There  are  in  this  state  worthy  men  and  worthy  women  who 
do  not  adopt  Christianity.  In  other  words,  there  are  Jews; 
Hebrews,  both  foreign  and  native  born,  and  we  should  not 
attempt  to  insert  a  word  here — and  the  committee  has  in- 
serted it — which  would  be  hostile  and  distasteful  to  that  peo- 
ple. I  remember  that  He  from  whom  the  religion  we  profess 
is  called  Christian,  was  himself  a  Jew,  and  nowhere  in  the 
New  Testament  is  there  any  word  or  suggestion  that  he  re- 
pudiated the  principles  of  the  Jewish  religion,  but  simply  the 
excrescences  which  had  grown  upon  that  religion.  My  belief 
is  that  if  we  adopt  the  recommendation  of  the  committee  we 
ehall  be  slapping  in  the  face  Him  from  whom  our  religion  is 
named. 

Why  should  we  do  it?  Is  there  any  call  for  it?  Are  not 
Christians  Christian,  even  if  we  leave  this  word  out  of  the 
organic  law  of  the  state?  I  hope  we  are,  and  if  those  words 


618    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

could  be  omitted  I  should  heartily  support  the  report  of  the 
committee. 

Now  there  is  one  way  in  which  this  can  be  done  and  not  in 
the  slightest  degree  injure  the  substance  of  the  report  made 
by  the  committee.  Their  report  contains  the  following: 
"Morality  and  piety  rightly  grounded  on  Christian  princi- 
ples." Now,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
if  we  would  strike  out  that  word  "Christian"  and  insert  the 
word  "right/'  and  strike  out  the  word  "rightly/'  we  should 
have  this  read,  "morality  and  piety  grounded  on  right  princi- 
ples." Of  course  every  Christian  would  believe  that  right 
principles  are  the  principles  of  Christianity,  and  every 
Hebrew  would  believe  that  right  principles  are  those  founded 
upon  the  morality  and  piety  of  the  Hebrews.  There  would 
be  no  disagreement  on  the  p'art  of  any  one.  Why,  then,  may 
not  this  be  done.  This  is  all  I  ask  at  your  hands,  and  it  will 
put  the  matter  in  such  shape  that  there  will  be  no  disagree- 
ment on  the  part  of  any  one,  and  you  and  I,  if  we  do  this,  will 
feel,  I  believe,  that  we  are  better  Christians  for  having 
dfone  it. 

I  make  this  motion  to  strike  out  the  word  "rightly,"  and 
strike  out  also  the  word  "Christian,"  and  in  place  of  the  word 
"Christian"  insert  the  word  "right,"  so  that  it  will  read:  "As 
morality  and  piety,  grounded  on  right  principles." 

The  President — In  the  report  of  the  committee  the  clause 
in  question  reads,  "As  morality  and  piety,  rightly  grounded  on 
Christian  principles,  will  give  the  best  and  greatest  security 
to  government."  The  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker, 
moves  the  following  amendment:  "Strike  out  the  word 
'rightly'  and  also  the  word  'Christian,'  and  insert  in  lieu 
thereof  the  word  'right/  so  the  clause  will  read,  'As  morality 
and  piety,  grounded  on  right  principles,  will  give  the  best  and 
greatest  security  to  government.'  'J  The  question  is  upon  the 
amendment. 

Mr.  Osgood  of  Nelson — I  will  inquire  if  there  is  any  stan- 
dard of  piety  in  such  an  amendment  as  that?  Is  there  any 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  619 

standard!  of  piety  at  all?     If  there  is,  it  is  the  question  of 
Christian  religion. 

I  claim  a  good  deal  of  the  work  of  this  Convention  so  far 
never  will  be  ratified  by  the  people,  and  of  this  much  I  am 
confident,  that  they  will  never  ratify  this  amendment  if  the 
word  "Christian"  is  stricken  out.  I  may  be  mistaken,  but  I 
claim  there  is  no  other  standard  of  piety  except  the  Christian 
religion. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — Mr.  President,  it  is  to'  be  re- 
gretted that  this  delicate  and  sensitive  question  is  to  be  de- 
bated further.  The  members  of  the  Committee  on  the  Bill  of 
Rights,  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  chairman,  have  fully 
considered  the  situation,  and  feel  that  the  amendment  pro- 
posed by  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  radically 
attacks  the  entire  theory  of  the  report,  which  the  committee 
has  submitted  to  the  Convention  here. 

There  are  three  essential  phases  of  the  amendment  proposed 
through  the  report  and  the  resolution  submitted  which  relate 
to  article  six  of  the  Bill  of  Rights.  One  idea  is  to  declare  in 
apt  words  that  no  expenses  relating  to  religious  institutions 
shall  ever  become  a  public  expense.  The  desired  result  in  this 
respect  is  accomplished  by  striking  out  the  word  "towns. " 
Another  idea  relates  to  the  question  whether  all  religious  be- 
liefs shall  be  tolerated  alike.  I  go  as  far  in  that  direction, 
and  the  committee  is  disposed  to  go  as  far  in  that  direction,  as 
the  gentleman  from  Bow.  The  other  question,  and  the  im- 
portant one  is,  whether  this  Convention  shall  take  a  backward 
step  and  allow  the  Jews,  or  the  pagans,  or  the  Mohammedans 
who  come  into  this  country,  and  who  enjoy  all  the  privileges 
of  our  institutions,  to  force  us  to  renounce  the  great  principle 
which  has  always  been  recognized  in  this  country — the  prin- 
ciple that  this  nation  and  state  is  rightly  grounded  on  Chris- 
tian principles,  a  principle  which  contra-distinguishes  our  in- 
stitutions from  nations,  for  instance,  founded  on  Moham- 
medan or  pagan  principles. 

The  fact  that  we  are  a  Christian  community,  a  Christian 


620    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

civilization,  is  the  glory  of  this  nation  and  the  glory  of  this 
state.  That  we  are  a  Christian  nation,  rightly  grounded,  is 
something  that  the  pagan,  or  the  Mohammedan,  or  the  Jew, 
has  no  right  to  complain  of.  If  I  go  to  Turkey,  and  that  gov- 
ernment shall  accord  to  me  free  toleration  in  respect  to  my 
religious  beliefs — something  that  she  has  never  done  to  any 
Christian  people — I  have  no  right  to  assert  or  to  flaunt  in  the 
face  of  that  government  my  sensitiveness  upon  the  question  of 
religion,  and  ask  them,  to  strike  from  their  fundamental  laws 
words  which  convey  the  idea  that  that  government  is  founded 
upon  Mohammedan  principles. 

The  point  that  I  want  to  make  distinct  is  that  this  commit- 
tee goes  as  far  as  the  gentleman  from  Bow  suggests,  and  as  far 
as  it  is  possible  for  words  to  go  in  expressing  the  idea  of  free 
and  broad  toleration  to  all  religious  sects  and  denominations. 
When  we  have  done  that,  they  have  no  right — the  heathen 
has  no  right — to  ask  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  to  wipe  out 
of  its  Bill  of  Rights  the  idea  that  our  scheme  and  system  of 
government  is  rightly  grounded  upon  principles  of  Chris- 
tianity. 

I  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Nelson,  Mr.  Osgood,  that 
it  would  shock  the  sense  of  the  great  mass  of  the  people  of 
New  Hampshire,  and  the  sense  of  the  people  of  the  country, 
were  we  to  strike  from  the  Bill  of  Rights  the  declaration,  that 
this  state,  that  the  civic  structure  of  this  state  is  rightly 
grounded  on  evangelical  principles,  unless  we  should  preserve 
the  substantial  idea  by  substituting  the  word  Christian  in  its 
place.  The  fact  that  our  government  is  so  grounded,  permits 
us,  with  a  generosity  that  does  not  exist  in  any  other  nation  in 
the  world,  to  say  to  all,  whatever  your  beliefs  are,  whether  you 
believe  in  the  existence  of  the  Almighty  or  do  not,  whether 
you  believe  in  the  Confucian  religion,  the  Mohammedan  re- 
ligion, or  the  Jewish  religion,  you  shall  all  stand  equal  before 
the  law.  That  does  not  go  to  the  structure.  It  means  re- 
ligious toleration  in  its  broadest  sense,  yet  it  does  not  involve 
a  renunciation  of  the  beneficent  principle  involved  in  the  idea 
that  our  system  of  government  is  rightly  grounded  upon 
Christian  principles. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  621 

Mr.  Cross  of  Manchester — I  did  not  expect  to  speak  on  this 
question,  but  it  comes  so  very  near  to  me  that  I  cannot  re- 
frain from  saying  a  word. 

This  nation,  in  history,  in  poetry,  and  in  romance,  has  been 
recognized  as  a  Christian  nation.  I  do  not  refer  to  denomi- 
nations, to  Catholic,  Unitarian,  Universalist,  Congregation- 
alist,  or  any  sect — I  do  not  say  that  this  or  that  is  not  Chris- 
tian.' We  all  claim  to  live  under  the  Christian  name. 

Mr.  President,  it  stirs  my  memory  as  I  am  asked  to  vote  for 
or  against  the  word  "Christian"  in  our  Constitution.  From 
almost  the  hour  when  the  lullaby  sounded  in  my  ears,  from 
the  time  of  boyhood  and  early  manhood  long  ago  to  eighty- 
five  years,  this  word  Christian  has  had  a  meaning  very  helpful 
and  very  precious. 

In  the  homes  of  some  of  us  if  there  is  anything  that  we 
have  endeavored  to  be  and  endeavored  to  live  before  our  chil- 
dren and  before  those  with  whom  we  have  associated,  it  has 
been  to  respect  the  Christian  religion. 

I  cannot  forbear  to  ask  you  as  New  Hampshire  men,  re- 
membering the  fathers  and  mothers  who  have  lived  in  these 
hills,  mountains,  and  valleys,  to  entreat  you,  not  to  strike  out 
this  word. 

I  believe  I  voice  the  almost  unanimous  wish  and  demand 
of  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  in  their  protest  against  strik- 
ing out  the  word  "Christian"  from  the  Constitution,  and  in 
their  earnest  appeal  to  retain  and  honor  it  as  the  one  word 
above  all  others  held  dear  to  the  hearts  of  the  men  who  placed 
it  there. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Whiteneld — I  have  been  somewhat  im- 
pressed to  hear  my  friends,  and  especially  my  namesake,  who 
has  spoken  quite  often.  I  did  not  think  that  I  would  rise  in 
this  Convention  to  speak,  but  I  desire  to  make  one  suggestion, 
or  to  ask  one  question. 

When  our  Pilgrim  Fathers  left  their  own  country  and  came 
to  this  land,  they  came  for  the  purpose  of  freedom  in  religious 
thought,  and  yet  they  drove  honest  men  from  Massachusetts 


622    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

into  Pennsylvania  and  Rhode  Island  because  they  did  not  dip 
their  faces  in  the  water  just  to  suit  them.  I  know,  gentlemen, 
that  men  generally  talk  on  subjects  they  are  least  posted  r-n 
and  I  do  not  profess  to  be  posted  on  Christianity.  I  do  not 
know  what  it  means.  I  have  been  living  in  the  northern  part 
of  the  state,  where  a  late  governor  a  few  years  ago  told  us  we 
did  n't  have  Christian  burial,  that  we  buried  people  without  a 
funeral.  I  come  from  that  benighted  part  of  the  state,  out  of 
that  awful  darkness.  Therefore  you  cannot  expect  me  to 
throw  much  light  upon  this  subject.  I  only  wish  to  ask  and 
would  like  to  have  some  one  tell  me  why  we  should  not  allow 
every  person  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his 
own  conscience,  which  is  what  our  fathers  left  home  for. 

I  do  not  go  quite  so  far  as  the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr. 
Everett,  and  desire  to  have  "God"  taken  out  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, but  I  do  not  think  there  should  be  any  religion  in  it  in 
any  shape,  form,  or  manner,  and  I  shall  vote  for  the  amend- 
ment of  the  gentleman  from  Bow. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover — Mr.  President:  It  seems  to  me 
that  the  amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow  is  in  the  line 
of  progress.  We  are  not  striking  Christianity  out  of  our  Con- 
stitution. We  are  simply  striking  the  word  Christian  from 
this  section.  We  have  been  amending  the  Constitution  in 
other  places  and  it  seems  to  me  that  if  we  are  to  amend  this 
section  at  all  it  should  be  in  the  way  proposed  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Bow, — upon  broad  lines,  so  that  when  we  are 
through  with  it  we  shall  leave  it  right. 

There  has  been  a  change  in  the  past  hundred  years  in  the 
religious  sentiments  of  the  people.  There  has  been  such  a 
change  in  this  country  even  in  the  past  few  years.  "Step  by 
step  since  time  began,  we  see  the  steady  gain  of  man,"  and 
although  great  progress  has  been  made  in  material  things, 
nowhere  has  it  been  greater  than  in  the  realm  of  religious 
thought.  No  longer,  as  in  ancient  and  mediaeval  times  do 
devils  walk  hand  in  hand  with  men  or  angels  sit  in  sweet  com- 
munion on  every  corner.  The  age  of  miracles  has  passed 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  623 

and  immaculate  conceptions  are  of  rare  occurrence.  Yet  the 
cause  of  true  religion  has  been  advanced  and  mankind  bene- 
fited, and  to-day  with  promise  of  final  conquest  firmer  than 
the  rockribbed  hillsides  the  cause  of  religious  freedom  makes 
her  onward  strides. 

I  would  suggest  that  this  section  is  now  obsolete  and  if  we 
cannot  amend  it  upon  broad  and  liberal  lines  no  harm  would 
probably  be  done  if  we  left  it  as  it  is.  But  if  we  cannot  amend 
it  in  a  way  that  will  commend  itself  to  men  of  all  religious 
beliefs,  then  let  us  leave  it  as  it  is,  as  a  reminder  of  what  our 
fathers  thought,  let  it  remain  in  obscurity  until  other  men  in 
other  times  shall  amend  it  in  accordance  with  the  spirit  of 
the  age. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — The  gentleman  who  is  chairman  of  this 
committee  has  made  some  suggestions  to  you  which  to  me 
seem  to  need  reply.  He  has  suggested  that  if  he  were  in 
Turkey,  or  in  China,  and  if  he  were  permitted  to  worship 
God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own  conscience  he  would 
be  satisfied.  He  ought  to  be  if  he  were  in  a  despotic  country. 
But  the  parallel  does  not  exist.  We  are  not  talking  about  a 
government  here  which  is  a  government  of  despotism,  but  a 
government  of  the  people.  The  voters  are  the  government, 
and  they  ought  to  see  to  it  that  everything  in  their  funda- 
mental law  gives  to  each  and  every  individual  every  right, 
and  no  one  ought  to  claim  for  himself  a  right  which  he  is  not 
willing  to  accord  all  others. 

The  very  words  which  were  used  by  the  gentleman  in  try- 
ing to  tell  you  how  liberal  the  amendment  proposed  by  the 
committee  is,  show  the  evil  of  it.  He  used  the  word  "tolera- 
tion." Have  I  the  right  to  tolerate  him?  Has  he  the  right 
to  tolerate  me  in  matters  of  religion?  Of  course  not.  I  have 
equal  rights  with  h:m  and  he  with  me,  and  every  Jew  in  the 
state  of  Xew  Hampshire  has  just  as  good  rights  as  either  of  us. 
That  is  the  question  on  which  you  are  called  to  vote. 

Gentleman,  I  had  a  mother,  and  early  teaching,  perhaps  not 
as  good  as  that  of  the  venerable  gentleman  who  was  born  in 


624     JOUIINAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Weare,  X.  II. ;  perhaps  liis  mother  was  a  better  Christian  than 
mine,  but  gentlemen,  with  all  due  respect. to  his  mother  and 
to  his  home,  I  do  not  believe  it.  I  do,  however,  believe  that 
my  mother,  if  she  is  looking  on  this  scene  to-day,  thanks  God 
that  she  has  a  son  broad  enough  in  Christian  principles  to-  ad- 
vocate that  no  man  in  this  state  should  be  tolerated,  but  that 
each  should  have  equal  rights  with  himself. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter — I  yield  to  no  man  from  Bow,  or  else- 
where, in  desiring  to  accord  the  fullest  religious  equality  to 
Jew,  gentile,  and  atheist  alike,  not  because  I  am  a  Jew  or  an 
atheist  myself,  but  because  I  do  not  have  any  right  to  oppose 
them.  The  amendment  proposed  by  this  committee  grants  to 
the  Jew  the  right  to  employ  public  teachers.  In  granting 
that  right,  the  committee  has  stricken  out  the  word  "Protest- 
ant" in  the  Constitution  immediately  before  "teachers  of 
piety  and  morality,"  and  they  grant  to  all  religious  societies 
within  this  state  the  right  to  make  adequate  provision  for  the 
teaching  of  their  religion.  By  that  amendment,  therefore, 
we  grant  to  the  Jew  the  right  to  teach  publicly  the  principles 
of  Jewism,  and  we  grant  to  the  Christian  sect  and  to  the 
pagan,  and1  to  the  Christian  teacher  or  the  pagan  teacher  ab- 
solute religious  equality  before  the  law.  Civil  equality  is 
granted  every  man  by  other  clauses  of  the  Constitution,  and 
the  only  thing  to  which  Jew  or  pagan  can  take  exception  is 
that  we  say  the  Christian  religion  is  a  trifle  the  best.  That  is 
all.  And  it  seems  to  me  you  cannot  ask  a  Christian  nation  to 
say, — "Whereas,  all  religions  are  equally  of  no  account,  we 
will  tolerate  them  all."  That  would  be  the  effect  of  the 
amendment  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker. 
He  would  wish  us  to  say  that  one  religion  is  as  good  as  an- 
other. But  in  the  amendment  which  he  himself  has  proposed 
he  has  included  the  words  "public  worship  of  the  Deity."  We 
may  find  many  within  the  state  who  do  not  believe  in  that, 
and  although  they  don't  believe  in  it  they  have  just  as  good  a 
right  to  their  beliefs  as  we,  but  they  have  not  the  right  to  say 
that  we  shall  strike  those  words  from  the  Constitution. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  625 

It  seems  to  me  that  the  gentleman  from  Bow  is  intensely 
bigoted  in  his  liberality.  He  wishes  to  prevent  the  rest  of  us 
saying  that  we  believe  Christianity  is  a  good  foundation  for  a 
Christian  government,  while  all  they  can  properly  ask  is  that 
we  declare  that  all  religions  shall  be  equally  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  law. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  amendment  of  Mr. 
Baker  of  Bow  be  adopted?"  the  negative  prevailed,  and  the 
amendment  was  lost.  The  resolution  reported  by  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Bill  of  Eights  and  Executive  Department  was 
then  adopted. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department,  submitted  the  following  report: 

The  Committee  on  Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was 
recommitted  the  amendment  proposed  by  Mr.  Norris  of  Ports- 
mouth relating  to  the  methods  of  raising  the  public  charges  of 
government,  having  further  considered  the  same,  report  it  in 
the  following  new  draft,  and  recommend  its  adoption: 

"Resolved,  that  article  six,  part  two,  of  the  Constitution  be 
amended  so  that  it  shall  read: 


6.  The  public  charges  of  government,  or  any  part 
thereof,  may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon  polls,  estates,  and 
other  classes  of  property,  including  franchises  and  the  trans- 
fer or  succession  of  property  by  will  or  inheritance;  and  there 
shall  be  a  valuation  of  the  estates  within  the  state  taken  anew 
once  in  every  five  years,  at  least,  and  as  much  oftener  as  the 
general  court  shall  order." 

The  report  was  accepted.  The  question  being  stated  upon 
the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of  the  committee  that 
the  resolution  as  reported  in  a  new  draft  ought  to  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  —  I  think  a  verbal  change  ought 
to  be  made,  and  I  move  to  strike  out  the  words  "transfer  and 
succession  of  property"  and  insert  in  lieu  thereof  the  words 
40 


626     JOURNAL'  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

"property  when  passing."  The  transfer  or  succession  of  prop- 
erty cannot  be  properly  said  to  be  property.  Franchises  may 
be  called  property,,  but  transfer  is  not  property.  Succession  is 
not  property,  and  the  resolution  may  be  made  more  consistent 
if  it  includes  in  other  kinds  of  property,  property  when  pass- 
ing by  will  or  inheritance.  If  I  had  had  an  opportunity  of 
seeing  a  member  of  the  committee  I  would  have  suggested 
that,  but  I  think  the  gentleman  from  Concord  who  made  this 
report  will  consider  my  criticism  a  correct  one. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord — I  hope  the  amendment  to  the  re- 
port of  the  committee  will  be  adopted.  I  think  the  words  are 
more  expressive  of  the  intent. 

The  amendment  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  was  stated  by 
the  chair  and  adopted  by  a  viva  voce  vote. 

Mr.  Cullen  of  Portsmouth — That  seems  to  be  satisfactory, 
and  I  am  glad  to  see  that  the  committee  has  had  a  change  of 
heart. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  resolution  as  reported 
by  the  committee  in  new  draft,  and  as  amended,  be  adopted?" 
the  affirmative  prevailed  and  the  resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Howe  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  Future  Mode 
of  Amending  the  Constitution  and  Other  Proposed  Amend- 
ments, submitted  the  following  report: 

i 

The  Committee  on  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Consti- 
tution and  Other  Proposed  Amendments,  to  whom  was  re- 
ferred the  resolutions  offered  by  Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord,  Mr. 
Baker  of  Bow,  and  Mr.  Colby  of  Hanover,  relative  to  striking 
out  articles  ninety-eight,  ninety-nine,  and  one  hundred  of  part 
second  of  the  Constitution,  and  providing  that  in  lieu  of  the 
present  system  of  amending  the  Constitution,  by  conventions 
called  for  that  purpose,  such  amendments  shall  originate  in 
and  be  proposed  by  the  legislature,  having  considered  said  sev- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  627 

eral  resolutions,  recommend  the  adoption  of  the  following 
resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  said  resolutions, 
or  either  of  them." 

The  report  was  accepted,,  and  the  question  being  stated, 
"Shall  the  report  of  the  committee  that  it  is  'inexpedient  to 
adopt  said  resolutions  or  either  of  them/  be  adopted  ?" 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  move  you  that  this  matter  lie  on  the 
table  and  be  made  a  special  order  for  to-morrow  at  2:30 
o'clock.  I  do  this  not  for  my  own  purposes,  but  the  gentle- 
man from  Hanover,  Mr.  Colby,  who  is  the  author  of  one  of 
these  resolutions,  has  communicated  to  me  this  morning  his 
wish  in  that  regard,  and  I  think  it  due  to  a  fellow-member 
who  is  absent  that  this  should  be  done. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter — I  wish  to  say  in  regard  to  the  gen- 
tleman from  Hanover,  Mr.  Colby,  that  he  has  been  informed 
of  the  meetings  of  the  committee,  and  this  matter  was  re- 
ferred to  a  sub-committee  of  the  committee  to  take  into  con- 
sideration, and  the  gentleman  was  notified  of  the  fact  and  re- 
quested to  confer  with  that  sub-committee  and  has  had  notice 
of  all  their  meetings.  I  do  not  stand  here  for  the  purpose  of 
preventing  him  giving  his  views  to  this  convention  if  he  so 
wishes,  but  it  does  seem  to  me  if  we  expect  to  conclude  our 
labors  in  season  for  the  incoming  legislature  we  ought  to 
make  progress. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  never  felt  a  more  imperative 
sense  of  duty  than  I  do  to  make  an  appeal  to  this  Convention 
not  to  separate  without  sending  to  the  people  a  new  method 
of  making  further  amendments  to  the  Constitution.  I  am 
aware  that  five  minutes  would  be  a  short  time  for  me  to  make 
my  views  known.  I  am  willing,  however,  to  go  on  now  or  later 
as  the  Convention  may  prefer. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — I  made  no  objection  to  the  committee 


628     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

proceeding  this  morning  because  the  gentleman  from  Hanover 
had  not  been  heard  before  the  committee,  but  he  wishes  to  be 
heard  before  this  Convention,  of  which  he  is  one  of  the  most 
prominent  and  best  educated  members,  and  I  think  it  is  due 
to  him  and  due  to  us  all  that  we  hear  him.  I  hope  the  motion 
which  I  have  made,  which  does  not  in  any  manner  prevent  the 
Convention  from  transacting  any  business  in  lieu  of  this,  and 
which  will  not  delay  the  Convention  in  point  of  time  in  any 
respect,  may  be  adopted  for  his  sake  if  for  nothing  else. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  was  stated  by  the  chair 
and  on  a  viva  voce  vote  prevailed.  A  division  was  called  for 
and  the  chair  declared  that  138  having  voted  in  the  affirma- 
tive and  167  having  voted  in  the  negative,  the  motion  was 
lost. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Mr.  President,  I  call  for  the  special 
order. 

The  President — The  chair  will  be  obliged  to  rule  that  under 
the  rules  of  the  Convention  a  general  order  takes  precedence 
over  a  special  order  until  the  general  order  is  completed. 

The  question  now  recurs  to  the  resolution  of  the  committee, 
that  "it  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  the  said  resolutions,  or  either 
of  them." 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Is  it  not  true  that  there  is  a  special 
order  pending  at  this  moment? 

The  President — The  chair  will  state  that  there  is  a  special 
order  pending.  But  under  the  rules  of  the  Convention,  pre- 
pared by  a  committee  of  which  the  gentleman  from  Bow  was 
chairman,  the  order  of  business  adopted  by  the  Convention 
as  stated  in  rule  12  is  as  follows: 

After  the  journal  has  been  read  and  corrected,  the  order  of 
business  shall  be  as  follows:  First,  the  presentation  of  reso- 
lutions and  petitions;  second,  the  reports  of  committees;  third, 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  629 

any  special  order  for  the  hour;  fourth,  the  unfinished  business 
of  the  preceding  day. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Will  the  President  permit  me  to  make 
a  suggestion?  Unquestionably  the  rule  is  as  it  has  been  read, 
but  that  rule  does  not,  I  apprehend,  include  what  the  gentle- 
man presiding  has  suggested.  It  says  reports  of  the  commit- 
tees shall  be  presented,  but  it  does  not  say  they  shall  be  acted 
upon  in  preference  to  a  special  order  of  the  day,  and  a  special 
order  of  the  day  comes  in  for  action  before  any  general  order. 

Mr.  Little  of  Manchester — I  have  the  honor  of  being  a 
member  of  the  Committee  on  Rules,  and  it  was  the  distinct 
understanding  of  that  committee  in  making  up  our  report  that 
the  general  order  should  take  precedence  over  any  special 
order,  and  in  rule  12  it  provides  that  after  the  journal  has 
been  read  and  corrected,  the  order  is  (2)  the  reports  of  the 
committees,  and  (3)  any  special  order  of  the  hour.  I  do  not 
understand  how  you  can  get  reports  of  committees  before 
the  Convention  until  they  are  presented  to  the  Convention  in 
order  to  be  acted  upon.  Of  course,  if  they  are  laid  upon  the 
table  as  they  are  successively  presented,  they  are  disposed  of, 
but  if  they  are  not  voted  down,  laid  upon  the  table,  or  dis- 
posed of  in  some  other  way,  it  is  conclusive  to  my  mind  that 
they  are  in  order  until  disposed  of  in  some  manner. 

The  President — This  matter  stands  upon  the  report  of  the 
committee,  and  the  question  is  whether  the  report  of  the  com- 
mittee that  it  is  "inexpedient  to  adopt  said  resolutions  or 
either  of  them,"  shall  be  adopted. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua — I  am  informed  that  Senator  Chand- 
ler desires  to  discuss  this  subject,  and  in  view  of  the  fact  that 
the  gentleman  from  Hanover,  Mr.  Colby,  the  author  of  one  of 
the  resolutions,  is  not  here  to  discuss  the  matter  and  take  the 
ten  minutes  allotted  to  him,  I  move  you  that  the  Convention 
grant  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  ten  minutes 
instead  of  five. 


630     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua  was  stated  by  the 
chair,  and  on  a  viva  voce  vote  prevailed. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — For  the  gratification  of  the  gen- 
tlemen who  gave  the  negative  vote  I  will  endeavor  to  take  less 
than  the  ten  minutes. 

But,  Mr.  President,  I  consider  this  a  very  serious  question. 
I  think  if  there  is  any  one  amendment  which  we  ought  to  give 
the  people  of  this  state  the  opportunity  of  voting  upon  it  is 
the  question  whether  they  will  have  a  new  method  of  making 
amendments  to  their  Constitution  like  that  which  every  other 
state  in  the  Union  now  has. 

I  do  not  think  that  New  Hampshire,  unique  as  she  is,  grand 
as  she  is,  noble  as  she  is,  enlightened  as  all  concede  her  to  be, 
ought  to  deprive  her  people  of  the  privilege  of  changing  even 
one  single  word  in  the  Constitution  unless  through  an  ex- 
penditure of  twenty-five  thousand  dollars  or  more  for  a  con- 
vention to  come  to  Concord,  with  the  possibility  that  the 
efforts  of  that  convention  may  be  wholly  abortive,  as  was  the 
Convention  of  1850  in  its  first  session. 

Fifty  years  ago  a  proposition  to  amend  the  Constitution  by 
putting  into  it  a  method  for  making  future  amendments  like 
that  adopted  by  all  the  other  states  in  the  Union  was  voted 
upon  by  the  people,  and  it  came  within  a  few  hundred  votes  of 
adoption.  I  spoke  the  other  day  of  the  Convention  of  1850,  and 
the  humiliation  which  its  members  felt  when  they  found  that 
all  fifteen  of  their  propositions  to  the  people  had  been  over- 
whelmingly rejected.  They  reassembled  and  again  submitted 
three  of  the  amendments  to  the  people.  One  was  adopted— 
the  amendment  striking  out  the  property  qualification.  The 
removal  of  the  religious  test,  which  was  submitted  by  the  Con- 
vention, was  voted  down  by  9,566  ayes  and  12,082  nays.  But 
in  1876,  the  convention  which  then  assembled  in  this  room 
submitted  the  abolishing  of  the  religious  test  once  more  to  the 
people,  and  it  was  carried.  Yet  the  Convention  of  1876  failed 
to  submit  the  third  proposition  which  had  been  voted  upon  in 
1850 — a  new  method  of  making  future  amendments,  which 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  631 

proposed  amendment  had  received,  when  submitted  to  the 
people  fifty-two  years  ago,  a  vote  of  12,500  in  the  affirmative 
and  6,906  in  the  negative — an  overwhelming  popular  majority 
falling  but  a  little  short  of  the  necessary  two-thirds  vote. 
Worse  yet,  not  only  did  the  Convention  of  1876,  which  again* 
submitted  the  abolishing  of  the  religious  test,  fail  to  submit 
a  new  method  of  making  future  amendments  such  as  every 
other  state  in  the  Union  enjoys;  but  so  also  failed  the  Con- 
vention of  1889. 

Mr.  President,  if  the  Convention  of  1876  had  shown  the 
wisdom  which  I  think  it  ought  to  have  possessed,  and  had 
submitted  this  proposition  which  had  received  nearly  two 
thirds  of  the  votes  of  the  people  in  1850,  I  believe  it  would 
have  been  adopted  and  this  state  would  have  been  saved  the 
expense  of  two  conventions — the  Convention  of  1889,  and 
this  Convention  of  1902. 

I  appeal  to  the  Convention  to  give  the  people  of  New 
Hampshire  a  chance  to  say  whether  after  all  of  these  ex- 
periences they  will  not  try  the  effect  of  a  new  method  of  mak- 
ing future  amendments. 

We  are  here  representing  the  people  upon  their  call  for  a 
Constitutional  Convention.  If  the  people  in  voting  for  this 
Convention  had  any  strong  idea  in  their  minds  when  they 
voted  10,000  for  and  4,000  against— only  14,000  voting  on  the 
subject,  as  to  what  the  Convention  should  do,  it  certainly  was 
that  they  should  reduce  the  house  of  representatives.  I  think 
that  they  believed  the  Convention  would  find  some  method  of 
reducing  the  house.  We  have  been  here  nearly  three  weeks 
and  what  progress  have  we  made?  The  Convention,  on  that 
subject,  is  divided1  right  in  two,  and  nothing  seems  more  cer- 
tain than  that  the  Convention  will  prove  an  abortion  so  far 
as  reducing  the  house  of  representatives  is  concerned. 

Now,  gentlemen,  what  sort  of  a  record  are  we  going  to 
present  to  the  people  of  this  state  if  we  fail  to  do  the  thing 
they  sent  us  here  to  do,  and  if  we  leave  them  at  the  same  time 
under  the  necessity  of  spending  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand 
dollars  by  and  by  to  get  men  to  come  together  here  and  do 


632    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

that  which  we  have  failed  to  do  ?  How  shall  we  stand  on  that 
record?  We  shall  he  discredited,  in  my  judgment,  if  we  do 
not  give  to  the  people  of  this  state  a  chance  to  vote  on  the 
proposition  which  fifty  years  ago  they  voted  upon,  and  which 
came  near  heing  adopted; — a  method  of  making  constitutional 
amendments  like  the  method  adopted  hy  every  other  state  in 
the  Union. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — As  the  mover  of  one  of  these 
resolutions  I  ask  your  attention  for  a  few  moments.  I  shall 
he  "brief.  My  object  in  presenting  the  amendment  I  did  was 
that  this  state  in  this  direction  as  well  as  in  the  cutting  down 
of  the  legislature,  might  be  saved  an  expense  of  twenty-five, 
thirty,  or  forty  thousand  dollars  every  few  years  in  amending 
the  Constitution.  I  stated  with  reference  to  a  proposed 
amendment  of  another  kind,  and  I  restate  it  here,  that  it  was 
my  single  purpose  in  advocating  these  different  measures  that  . 
the  state  might  afford  to  have  better  roads  and  better  schools. 
I  stand  in  that  attitude  to-day,  and  I  believe  as  firmly  as  I  did 
on  the  former  occasion,  that  the  best  way  we  can  save  money 
for  the  building  of  good]  roads  and  good  schools  is  to  cut  down 
the  expense  of  constitutional  conventions  and  of  the  legisla- 
tures. 

Take  for  instance,  as  an  illustration,  this  very  body  and  I 
think  you  will  be  convinced  that  a  better  method  of  amend- 
ing the  Constitution  can  be  devised.  We  have  spent  nearly 
half  of  the  appropriation  of  $25,000  in  discussing  the  basis  of 
representation,  and  what  position  are  we  in  to-day?  Gentle- 
men, I  undertake  to  say  that  after  spending  ten  or  twelve 
thousand  dollars  of  the  state's  money  in  discussing  this  basis 
of  representation  we  are  in  a  more  absurd  position  than  a 
body  of  four  hundred  men  ever  put  themselves  in  before.  We 
voted  deliberately  to  retain  the  600  as  the  basis  for  the  first 
representative,  we  also  voted  to  make  the  number  of  the 
house  300,  and  then  proceeded  in  this  Convention  to  vote 
down  the  number  for  the  second  representative  that  would  en- 
able us  to  retain  600  for  the  first  representative  and  still  have 
a  house  of  only  300.  We  sent  to  the  special  committee  a  prop- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  633 

osition  so  absurd,  and  I  stand  here  without  fear  of  contradic- 
tion on  that  point,  that  it  does  not  deserve  the  respectful  con- 
sideration of  that  committee  or  any  other. 

There  is  no  possible  likelihood  that  considering  the  posi- 
tion taken  by  this  Convention  an  amendment  submitted  to 
the  people  will  be  ratified  by  them.  If  this  is  not  an  absurd 
position  that  we  find  ourselves  in,  I  do  not  know  to  what  ab- 
surdity we  can  proceed.  There  is  ten  thousand  dollars  gone 
and  nothing  has  been  accomplished  which  will  secure  the 
approval  of  the  people  of  the  state. 

And  I  wish  not  only  to  bring  to  bear  upon  this  discussion 
the  experience  of  this  Convention,  but  the  experience  of  for- 
mer conventions  that  have  been  held  in  this  state.  The  gen- 
tleman from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  has  already  told  us  about 
the  Convention  of  1850,  and  we  have  only  to  look  at  the 
record  of  the  other  conventions  also  to  determine  for  our- 
selves whether  the  money  spent  in  holding  them  has  been  well 
spent  or  otherwise. 

In  case  further  amendment  to  the  Constitution  becomes 
necessary,  the  sensible  way  to  proceed,  to  my  mind,  would  be 
that  the  legislature  should  elect  a  commission  of  such  men  as 
the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Cross,  and  the  gentle- 
man from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich, — I  need  not  specify  the 
entire  membership  of  the  commission  because  that  would  be 
for  the  legislature  to  do;  but  I  should  certainly  include  a 
number  of  men  in  this  Convention — I  say  it  would  be  the 
duty  of  that  legislature  to  appoint  men  experienced  in  law 
and  in  legislation,  who  shall  proceed  to  draw  up  a  body  of 
amendments  that  would  be  logical  and  that  would  hang  to- 
gether and  that  would  not  need  amending  before  the  com- 
mission adjourned. 

The  point  that  I  want  to  make  is  this,  that  a  body  of  this 
size  of  men  unacquainted  with  this  business  and  unaccus- 
tomed to  it  is  not  the  proper  body  of  men  to  draw  up  these 
amendments.  We  have  seen  something  of  this  with  reference 
to  the  amendment  in  regard  to  inheritance,  and  you  see  how 
carefully  it  is  necessary  to  word  these  measures.  I  say  that 


634     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

matters  of  that  kind  should  come  before  men  who  are  com- 
petent to  weigh  well  the  words  that  are  to  be  put  into  the 
organic  law  of  the  state. 

I  need  not  take  up  your  time  much  longer,  but  I  wish  to 
refer  to  the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1791,  generally 
called  the  Convention  of  1792.  That  convention  remained  in 
session  for  months,  and  submitted  seventy-two  amendments 
to  the  people.  The  people  accepted  a  part  of  them  and  re- 
jected a  part  of  them,  but  the  propositions  submitted  were  so 
inconsistent  and  so  conflicting  that  those  that  were  accepted 
were  useless  because  depending  upon  those  that  were  rejected, 
and  the  whole  business  of  that  convention  had  to  be  done 
over  again. 

-  I  believe  a  commission,  chosen  as  I  suggest,  should  draw  up 
a  body  of  amendments  such  as  in  their  judgment  was  neces- 
sary and  desirable,  carefully  worded,  and  should  submit  them 
to  the  legislature,  which  would  then  have  something  definite 
to  talk  about.  They  would  not  waste  their  time  as  we  have 
here  at  cross  purposes,  and  I  believe  it  would  save  the  state  of 
New  Hampshire  thousands  of  dollars  in  the  course  of  a  few 
years. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester — Being  a  member  of  the  commit- 
tee who  reported  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  these  resolu- 
tions, it  is  perhaps  proper  for  me  to  say  a  few  words. 

First,  let  us  see  what  the  propositions  are.  There  are  three 
of  them;  that  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lamprey, 
who  has  just  taken  his  seat,  that  of  the  gentleman  from  Bow, 
Mr.  Baker,  and  that  of  the  gentleman  from  Hanover,  Mr. 
Colby.  They  all  come  to  the  same  thing, — that  the  legislature 
may  consider  an  amendment  and  adopt  it  in  their  sessions, — 
by  a  majority  vote  of  each  branch  one  says,  and  by  a  majority 
of  the  house  and  senate  together  another  says,  and  by  a  two- 
thirds  vote  of  each  branch  the  third  says.  Then  it  shall  be 
referred  to  the  next  legislature,  and  if  they  adopt  it  by  a 
majority  or  two-thirds  vote  as  the  case  may  be,  it  shall  go  to 
the  people  for  them  to.  vote  upon  it,  and  if  they  adopt  it,  it 
shall  become  a  part  of  the  Constitution. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  635 

I  know  of  no  "lamp  to  guide  my  feet"  but  the  lamp  of  ex- 
perience. I  have  been  taught  to  believe  and  do  believe  that 
the  Constitution  of  this  state  is  the  foundation  upon  which 
rests  all  of  our  institutions  and  all  of  our  rights.  I  believe 
that  that  foundation  should  be  as  firm  and  as  secure  as  possi- 
ble,— that  it  should  be  protected  against  frequent  changes, — 
and,  what  is  equally  as  important,  that  it  should  be  protected 
against  continuous  assaults. 

I  believe  if  we  should  recommend,  and  the  people  should 
adopt,  the  methods  proposed  by  these  resolutions  or  any  of 
them,  that  the  sessions  of  our  legislature  would  be  taken  up 
largely  with  attempts  to  change  the  Constitution  in  various 
respects,  and  I  further  believe  that  in  the  stress  and  storm  of 
political  excitement  the  representatives  of  the  people  might 
come  here  and  make  radical  and  dangerous  changes  in  the 
Constitution  merely  for  partisan  advantage  and  send  them  to 
the  people,  and  the  people  might  adopt  them,  and  they  might 
become  part  of  our  Constitution,  and  thus  bring  about  great 
evils. 

You  all  know  that  there  are  many  men  in  this  state  who  be- 
lieve that  the  Constitution  ought  to  be  changed,  and  they 
would  be  constantly  coming  into  the  legislature  and  asking  to 
have  it  amended.  Almost  every  man  that  comes  here  to  this 
Convention  has  one  or  more  propositions  for  changes  which 
he  believes  would  improve  the  Constitution;  and  the  same 
thing  would  take  place  in  the  legislature.  Nearly  every  rep- 
resentative would  have  a  proposition  to  present,  and  the  time 
of  the  legislature  would  be  absorbed  in  discussing  propositions 
which  the  good  sense  of  the  people  in  most  instances  would 
reject.  I  believe  that  our  Constitution  should  be  firm;  that  it 
should  not  be  assailable  by  every  wind  that  blows.  But  if  we 
give  this  power  of  amendment  to  the  legislature,  it  will  not  be 
as  firm  as  it  is  to-day.  Respect  for  the  Constitution  would,  I 
fear,  grow  smaller  if  these  proposed  amendments  should  pass. 

Our  legislature  to-day  has  all  the  power  that  any  legislature 
could  have  to  pass  laws,  and  the  final  article  of  the  Bill  of 
Eights  reads  as  follows: 


636     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

"A  frequent  recurrence  to  the  fundamental  principles  of 
the  Constitution  and  a  constant  adherence  to  justice,  modera- 
tion, temperance,,  industry,  frugality,  and  all  the  social  virtues, 
are  indispensably  necessary  to  preserve  the  blessings  of  liberty 
and  good  government.  The  people  ought,  therefore,  to  have  a 
particular  regard  to  all  those  principles  in  the  choice  of  their 
officers  and  representatives;  and  they  have  a  right  to  require 
of  their  lawgivers  and  magistrates  an  exact  and  constant  ob- 
servance of  them  in  the  formation  and  execution  of  the  laws 
necessary  for  the  good  administration  of  government." 

There  is  your  Constitution  to-day.  The  principles  of  "jus- 
tice, moderation,  temperance,  industry,  frugality,  and  all  the 
social  virtues,"  are  now  the  constitutional  bases  of  legislative 
action.  Outside  of  those  principles,  what  is  there  that  calls 
for  this  change?  And  what  is  there  in  them  that  calls  for 
legislation  which  the  legislature  has  not  now  power  to  enact? 

I  trust,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen,  that  you  will  not 
vote  to  make  this  change. 

Mr.  Wentworth  of  Plymouth — Mr.  President  and  gentle- 
men of  the  Convention:  The  gentleman  from  Manchester, 
Mr.  Jones,  has  said  all  I  was  going  to  say  except  in  one  re- 
spect. Quite  a  good  deal  has  been  said  in  this  Convention 
about  the  expense  of  legislation,  and  it  has  been  said  that  the 
Convention  itself  costs  a  good  deal  of  money.  Is  it  not  just 
as  expensive  to  keep  a  legislature  here  as  it  is  a  Constitutional 
Convention? 

One  thing  more.  If  you  have  a  convention  once  in  ten  or 
fifteen  years  you  confine  the  expense  to  that,  but  if  you  adopt 
one  of  these  resolutions  you  will  have  a  convention  every  two 
years  instead  of  once  in  ten  or  fifteen  years,  and  it  would  cer- 
tainly cost  more  to  have  a  convention  every  two  years  than  to 
have  one  in  ten  or  fifteen  years.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  as 
far  as  the  expense  goes  it  is  better  to  retain  the  Constitutional 
Convention. 

As  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  has  already  expressed 
my  views  on  the  other  features  of  this  matter,  I  will  take  no 
more  of  your  time. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  637 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter — As  chairman  of  the  committee 
which  reported  in  opposition  to  this  resolution,  it  may  be  well 
for  me  to  say  a  single  word  in  explanation  of  the  action  of  the 
committee. 

As  has  been  stated  by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr. 
Jones,  the  committee  took  the  view  that  the  Constitution  was 
the  fundamental  organic  law  of  the  state,  and  the  less  disturb- 
ance there  was  to  titat  law  the  better  it  would  be  for  the  state. 
We  did  not  think  it  would  be  for  the  advantage  of  the  state  to 
have  it  in  the  power  of  the  legislature  to  tinker  with  the  Con- 
stitution at  every  session,  and  such  would  be  the  result,  as  all 
of  you  must  know  who  have  been  in  the  legislature,  if  these 
amendments  are  adopted. 

Now  what  harm  has  been  done  under  the  present  method 
of  amending  the  Constitution?  The  only  suggestion  I  have 
heard  made  against  the  present  method  is  that  it  costs  some- 
thing, and  that  every  time  a  proposition  is  made  to  amend  the 
Constitution  it  costs  the  state  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand 
dollars  to  do  it.  As  has  been  suggested',  do  you  suppose  if  this 
power  to  make  amendments,  or  to  suggest  amendments,  was 
put  into  the  hand's  of  the  legislature  you  would  save  any 
money  by  that?  Every  man  who  had  a  grievance  would  come 
to  the  legislature  with  the  idea  that  his  sovereign  remedy  was 
to  amend  the  Constitution,  and  the  legislature  would  be 
flooded  with  propositions  of  that  nature.  For  one,  I  hold  the 
Constitution  of  New  Hampshire  in  too  much  veneration  to 
subject  it  to  any  such  process  as  that. 

I  say  another  thing — and  I  do  not  mean  to  speak  dispar- 
agingly of  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire — but  I  submit 
to  you  that  the  men  as  a  rule  who  constitute  a  constitutional 
convention  are  an  abler  set  of  men  than  those  who  come  to 
the  legislature,  and  in  a  convention  we  get  the  benefit  of  their 
wisdom.  And  so  I  say  for  that  reason,  if  for  no  other,  it  is 
better  to  leave  the  matter  as  it  is. 

It  has  been  said  that  in  previous  conventions  very  many 
recommendations  were  made  which  were  not  adopted  by  the 
people.  Is  there  any  guarantee  that  a  recommendation  made 


638     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

by  the  legislature  would  be  received  with  any  greater  favor? 
Is  it  to  be  said  that  these  recommendations  would  be  more 
liable  to  be  adopted  by  the  people  if  they  came  from  a  political 
body  like  the  legislature,  the  members  of  which  represent 
largely  the  political  parties  of  the  state,  and  that  measures 
would  be  rejected  that  came  from  a  convention  like  this  where 
a  great  many  of  the  members  come  representing  both  the  Re- 
publican  and  Democratic  party,  and  there  is  no  political  bias. 
I  believe  that  every  member  of  this  Convention,  and  of  any 
other  convention,  thoroughly  believes  that  we  are  here  to 
make  recommendations,  not  in  the  interest  of  any  part}',  but 
in  the  interest  of  the  whole  people.  That  will  not  always  be 
so  in  the  legislature. 

For  these  reasons  and  many  others  which  might  be  sug- 
gested, I  hope  the  recommendation  of  the  committee  will  be 
adopted. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  resolution  reported 
by  the  committee  be  adopted  ?"  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord 
called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  nine  other  gentlemen  concurring. 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative: 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Sanborn  of  Auburn,  Flanders  of 
Brentwood,  Eaton,  Knowles,  Kimball  of  Danville,  Kelsey  of 
Deerfield,  Abbott  of  Derry,  Eastman,  Follansby,  Wetherell, 
Leddy,  Hooke,  Frink,  Sanborn  of  Hampstead,  Towle,  Weare, 
Chase  of  Kingston,  Pollard,  deRochemont,  Buiiey,  Walker 'of 
Newmarket,  Gate,  Kelsey  of  Nottingham,  Peaslee,  Emery,  S. 
W.,  Howard,  Norris,  Paul,  Ham,  Cullen,  Heale}^,  Locke  of 
Seabrook,  Wingate,  Clark  of  Windham. 

STRAFFOKD  COUNTY.  Morrison  of  Dover,  Roberts,  Hanson 
of  Dover,  Neally,  Morang,  Folsom,  Nute  of  Dover,  Nutter  of 
Farmington,  Webb,  Gerrish,  Moore,  Chamberlain,  Nute  of 
Rochester,  Furbush,  Meader,  Gelinas,  Cochrane,  Gunnison, 
Nutter  of  Rollinsford,  Libby,  Locke  of  Somersworth,  Leary, 
Roy,  Morin,  Hall  of  Strafford. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBEK  17,  1902.  639 

BELKNAP  COUNTY.  Clark  of  Center  Harbor,  Morrill  of 
Gilford,  Cogswell,  Jewett,  Lewis,  Smith  of  Meredith,  Smith  of 
New  Hampton. 

CARROLL  COUNTY.  Hideout,  Colman,  Spencer,  Hobson, 
Gibson,  Morrill  of  Conway,  Dearborn  of  Eaton,  Harmon,  Mer- 
row,  Murch,  Meserve,  Gilman,  Brown  of  Ossipee,  Page  of 
Tamworth,  Morrison  of  Tuftonborough,  Sanborn  of  Wake- 
field,  Clow,  Hersey. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY.  Stone  of  Andover,  Buxton,  French 
of  Bradford,  Sanborn  of  Chichester,  Dudley  of  Concord, 
Foote,  Virgin,  Hollis,  Mitchell  of  Concord,  Foster,  Kimball  of 
Concord,  Howe,  Casey,  Jordan,  Ford1  of  Danbury,  Caldwell, 
Dolbeer,  Blodgett  of  Franklin,  Sanborn  of  Franklin,  Stone  of 
Franklin,  Leach,  Towne,  Wilkins,  Wilson  of  Hill,  Putnam, 
Messer,  Wyatt,  Truesdell,  Green  of  Pittsfield,  Sawyer  of  Salis- 
bury, Lang. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Hubbard,  Kimball  of  Benning- 
ton,  Fessenden,  Whitaker  of  Deering,  Downs,  Colby,  Paige  of 
Goffstown,  Peavy,  Bacon,  Fogg,  Smith  of  Hillsborough,  Hoi- 
man,  Powers  of  Hollis,  Marsh,  Tarbell,  Wilkinson,  Green  of 
Manchester,  Dodge  of  Manchester,  Boutwell,  Jones,  Robin- 
son,  Tremblay,  Lord,  Gilmore,  Farrington,  Harvey,  Hill,  Pre- 
court,  Starr,  Horan,  Glancjv  Sullivan,  Griffin,  Jennings, 
Irwin,  McAllister,  Quirin  Joseph,  Allen,  Clement  of  Man- 
chester, Littlefield,  Powers  of  Manchester,  McElroy,  Greager, 
Richer,  Provost,  Quirin  Eugene,  Hall  of  Manchester,  Trinity, 
Gordon,  Knight,  Rotch,  Worcester,  Raymond,  Hamblett, 
Spring,  Clough  of  Nashua,  Harriman,  Flood,  Parker  of 
Nashua,  Wason,  Woodbury  of  Nashua,  Proctor,  Runnells, 
Shedd,  Flather,  Earley,  Slattery,  Dodge  of  New  Boston, 
Blanchard:,  Seavey,  Morrison  of  Peterborough,  Scott,  Rich- 
ardson, Simons,  Bales. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Cooke,  Learned,  Blake,  Collins  of 
Gilsum,  Poole,  Hall  of  Keene,  Newell,  Woodward,  Madden, 
Craig  of  Marlow,  Osgood,  Cass,  Emory,  Buckminster,  Mc- 
Clure,  Rugg,  Day,  Spaulding,  Kiniry,  Goodnow,  Davis. 


640     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY.  Brooks,  Stockwell,  Kossiter,  Colby, 
Fairbanks,  Ide,  Hanson  of  Goshen,  Burpee,  Holmes,  Bradley, 
Bartlett,  Newton. 

GRAFTON  COUNTY.  Dearborn  of  Ashland,  Carbee,  Parker 
of  Benton,  Chase  of  Bristol,  Ashley,  Young  of  Easton,  A  very, 
Cumings,  Dresser,  Parker  of  Franconia,  Walker  of  Grafton, 
Kidder,  Ward,  Pike  of  Haverhill,  Jewell  of  Hebron,  Flanders, 
Glazier,  Drake,  Dewey,  Hibbard,  Woolson,  Green  of  Littleton, 
Morse,  Melvin,  Warden,  French  of  Orange,  Lamprey  of  Or- 
ford,  Ford  of  Piermont,  Craig  of  Eumney,  Green  of  Water- 
ville,  Shute,  Woodbury  of  Woodstock. 

Coos  COUNTY.  Moffett,  Rich,  Daley,  Boudreau,  Murrayy 
Miles,  Johnson,  Titus,  Wright  of  Dummer,  Evans,  Crawford, 
Kent,  Phipps,  Perkins,  McKellips,  Blanchard,  Philbrook, 
Pike  of  Stark,  Hinman,  Aldrich  of  Whitefield,  Dodge  of 
Whitefield. 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative. 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Fuller,  Evans,  Cole,  Wheeler, 
Jewell  of  South  Hampton. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY.     Edgerly. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY.  Demeritt,  Pulsifer  of  Laconia,  Gorrell, 
Busiel,  Knox,  Rogers,  Fellows. 

CARROLL  COUNTY.     Mckerson. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY.  Blodgett  of  Allenstown,  Baker, 
Frame,  Lyford,  Mies,  Walker  of  Concord,  Whittier,  Lamprey 
of  Concord,  Ingalls,  Chandler,  Wyatt,  Thompson  of  Warner. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Clyde,  Briggs,  Cross,  Little, 
Guerin,  Boivin,  Ledoux,  Desmarais. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.     Buckley,  Annett. 
SULLIVAN  COUNTY.     Tenney,  Penniman. 
GRAFTON  COUNTY.     Sloane,  Morris,  Russell. 

And  276  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  41 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  641 

gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  negative,  the  resolution  re- 
ported by  the  committee,  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  adopt  the 
proposed  amendments,  prevailed. 

The  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department  submitted 
the  following  reports: 

The  Committee  on  Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was 
referred  the  several  proposed  amendments  to  articles  nine 
and  ten,  of  part  second  of  the  Constitution,  relating  to  rep- 
resentation in  the  house  of  representatives,  having  consid- 
ered the  same,  the  undersigned  members  of  the  committee 
recommend  the  amendment  of  said  articles  nine  and  ten  of 
part  second  of  the  Constitution,  embodied  in  the  resolution 
herewith  respectfully  submitted. 

Your  committee,  in  the  discharge  of  the  difficult  and  re- 
sponsible duties  committed  to  them,  in  the  effort  to  reach  a 
basis  that  would  meet  the  approbation  of  the  Convention,  and 
such  as  if  adopted  by  the  Convention  would  ultimately  meet 
the  approval  of  the  people  when  submitted  to  them,  have  care- 
fully considered,  (1)  the  merits,  respectively,  of  the  various 
proposed  amendments,  (2)  the  recommendation  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  as  indicated  by  their  several  votes,  (3) 
the  imperative  demand  for  some  reasonable  reduction  in  the 
membership  of  the  house,  and  (4)  what  proposed  revision  of 
the  Constitution,  upon  this  subject  would,  probably,  be  ap- 
proved by  the  qualified  voters  of  the  state,  when  the  same 
shall  be  laid  before  the  towns  and  wards  for  action  thereon. 
And,  considering  those  various  elements,  the  undersigned 
members  of  the  committee  have  been  brought  to  the  conclu- 
sion that  the  revision  proposed  and  embodied  in  the  resolu- 
tion herewith  submitted,  is  the  most  equitable  and  practicable 
amendment  attainable,  under  existing  circumstances  and  con- 
ditions. 

The  adoption  and  execution  of  this  method  of  revision  will 
secure  a  substantial  reduction  in  the  membership  of  the  house 
of  representatives.  This  basis  applied  to  the  population  of 
41 


642    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

tke  state,  as  shown  by  the  last  United  States  census,  will,  re- 
duce the  membership  of  the  house  of  representatives  to  313> 

A  revision,  in  accordance  with  the  proposed  amendment, 
recognizes  and  adopts  the  ratio  and  proportion  which  was  es- 
tablished by  the  founders  of  the  Constitution  in  1784,  and 
since  adhered  to  by  the  various  conventions  and  the  people. 
Any  proposed  revision,  involving  a  departure  from  this  ratio 
of  the  town  system — the  basis  recognized  as  equitable  by  the 
framers  of  the  Constitution — would  be,  in  our  judgment,  re- 
jected by  the  voters  of  the  state.  A  substitution  of  any  other 
proportion,  or  ratio,  in  determining  representation  would,  it 
is  apparent,  disturb  the  existing  relations  of  the  people  of  the 
different  towns  and  wards  to  the  state  government,  through 
their  representation  in  the  house  of  representatives. 

To  the  action  of  the  Committee  of  tjie  Whole,  indicating 
600  as  the  basis  for  the  first  representative,  we  have  given 
special  attention.  If  this  basis  is  adhered  to,  its  effect  will  be 
to  require,  approximately,  3,000  as  the  mean  increasing  num- 
ber, thus  requiring  about  3,600  population  for  two  representa- 
tives. Such  a  result  would  not  only  require  the  reduction  in 
the  membership  of  the  house  of  representatives  to  be  made 
wholly  from  the  larger  towns  and  cities,  the  towns  of  600  pop- 
ulation, and  under,  retaining  their  present  number,  but  it 
would,  also,  result  in  diminishing  the  voting  power  of  the  re- 
maining members  of  the  larger  towns  and  cities,  and  corre- 
spondingly increasing  the  voting  power  of  the  smaller  towns, 
whose  representation  would,  in  no  degree,  be  diminished,  or 
disturbed,  by  such  decreased  representation  in  the  house, 
upon  this  basis. 

While  this  vote  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  is  entitled 
to  consideration,  and  has  received  such,  it  will  be  recalled  by 
the  members  of  the  Convention  that  it  was  distinctly  stated, 
by  the  chairman  of  the  committee,  at  the  time  this  and  other 
votes  of  a  like  character  were  taken,  that  it  was  a  mere  recom- 
mendation, having  no  binding  force  or  authority  upon  your 
special  committee,  to  whom  the  matter  was  referred  for  spe- 
cial consideration. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  643 

We  suggest,  also,  that  in  the  consideration  of  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  the  fact  devel- 
oped that  some,  at  least,  of  the  members  who  had  voted  for 
the  reduction  of  the  house,  on  the  basis  of  600  inhabitants  for 
the  first  representative,  subsequently  thereto,  upon  reflection, 
discovered  that  such  an  amendment  to  the  Constitution  could 
not  possibly  be  ratified  by  the  people,  as  it  took  the  entire  re- 
duction from  the  cities  and  towns,  from  whence  the  larger 
part  of  the  votes  must  come  to  secure  its  adoption;  and  such 
members  suggested  to  members  of  this  committee,  the  use- 
lessness  of  a  recommendation  in  which  the  basis  of  600  would 
be  adhered  to.  Therefore,  in  our  judgment,  to  secure  the  ob- 
jecf  for  which  the  Convention  was  brought  into  existence — a 
material  reduction  in  the  membership  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives— the  most  reasonable  and  practicable  method  of 
attaining  that  end,  is  the  method  proposed  in  the  resolution 
herewith  submitted,  unless  there  should  be  submitted  some 
new  basis  which  would  be  a  more  or  less  radical  departure 
from  the  existing  system. 

As  you  will  observe,  we  recommend,  also,  the  adoption  of  a 
provision,  whereby  towns  or  wards,  having  less  than  800  pop- 
ulation, may  be  authorized  to  unite,  for  the  purpose  of  send- 
ing a  representative,  providing  such  towns  or  wards  so  vote 
at  meetings  held  for  that  purpose. 

This  will  accord  towns  and  wards  lacking  the  requisite  pop- 
ulation for  one  representative,  the  privilege  of  joining  with 
ethers,  and  thus  secure  representation  all  the  time;  or,  if  they 
so  decide,  they  may  have  their  representation  by  themselves, 
a  proportionate  part  of  the  time.  This  recognizes  and  author- 
izes the  right  of  the  people  of  such  towns  and  wards  volun- 
tarily to  unite;  but  it  does  not  compel  them  to  do  so. 

This  plan  of  permitting  towns  to  unite  to  secure  contin- 
uous representation,  is  a  radical  departure  from  the  method 
of  classification  of  towns  adopted  by  the  Convention  of  1876, 
and  abolished  by  the  Convention  of  1889.  The  old  plan  of 
classification  was  obligatory,  and  compelled  voters  to  cast 
their  ballots  in  alternate  years  outside  of  their  customary 


644     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL,  CONVENTION. 

polling  places.  The  method  proposed  is  optional  with  the 
towns  and  allows  the  voter  to  cast  his  ballot  in  his  own  town. 
The  plan  of  revision,  proposed  in  the  resolution  herewith 
submitted,  being,  as  before  suggested,  the  most  reasonable, 
and,  probably,  the  only  one  attainable,  under  existing  condi- 
tions and  circumstances,  we  respectfully  and  earnestly  recom- 
mend its  adoption  by  the  Convention. 

DAVID  CROSS, 
JOHN  W.  SANBORN, 
JAMES  0.  LYFORD, 
JOHN  M.  MITCHELL, 
1  ALFRED  F.  HOWARD, 
STEPHEN  S.  JEWETT, 
EDMUND  E.  TRUESDELL, 
JOSEPH  QUIRIN, 
W.  B.  RICHARDSON, 
WILBUR  F.  PARKER, 
CHARLES  E.  PHILBROOK, 
LOUIS  M.  LAPLANTE. 

The  undersigned  believe  that  the  only  equitable  method  of 
representation  is  that  secured  by  the  district  system,  but  as 
the  Convention  in  Committee  of  the  Whole  has  voted  to 
adhere  to  the  town  system  they  subscribe  to  the  foregoing 
report  as  containing  the  only  ratio  upon  which  the  town  sys- 
tem should  be  preserved. 

JAMES  0.  LYFORD, 
STEPHEN  S.  JEWETT, 
ALFRED  F.  HOWARD, 
DAVID  CROSS, 
JOSEPH  QUIRIN, 
EDMUND  E.  TRUESDELL, 
CHARLES  E.  PHILBROOK, 
LOUIS  M.  LAPLANTE. 

Amendment  proposed — 

"Resolved,  That  articles  nine  and  ten,  of  part  second  of  the 
Constitution,  be  amended,  by  striking  out  the  word  'six/  and 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  645 

inserting  instead  thereof  the  word  'eight;'  and  by  striking  out 
the  word  'eighteen/  and  inserting  thereof  the  word  'twenty- 
four/  and  by  striking  out  the  word  'twelve/  and  inserting  in- 
stead thereof  the  word  'sixteen/  and  by  adding  to  section  ten, 
the  following:  Provided)  that  the  legislature  may  authorize 
contiguous  towns,  or  contiguous  towns  and  wards,  having,  re- 
spectively, less  than  800  inhabitants,  but  whose  inhabitants 
in  the  aggregate  equal  or  exceed  800,  to  unite  for  the  purpose 
of  electing  a  representative,  if  each  town  so  decides  by  major 
vote,  at  a  meeting  called  for  the  purpose;  and  the  votes  of 
towns,  thus  united,  shall  be  cast,  counted,  returned,  and  de- 
clared, as  votes  for  senators  are  cast,  counted,  returned,  and! 
declared;  and!  the  governor  shall,  fourteen  days  before  the 
first  Wednesday  of  each  biennial  session  of  the  legislature, 
issue  his  summons  to  such  persons  as  appear  to  be  chosen  rep- 
resentatives, by  a  plurality  of  votes,  to  attend  and  take  their 
seats  on  that  day;  so  that  said  sections,  as  amended,  shall  read 
as  follows: 

"ARTICLE  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  this 
state,  a  representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and 
founded  upon  principles  of  equality,  and,  in  order  that  such 
representation  may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit, 
every  town,  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards 
of  cities,  having  800  inhabitants  by  the  last  general  census  of 
the  state,  taken  by  authority  of  the  United  States  or  of  this 
state,  may  elect  one  representaive;  if  2,400  such  inhabitants, 
may  elect  two  representatives;  and  so  proceeding  in  that  pro- 
portion, making  1,600  such  inhabitants  the  mean  increasing 
number  for  any  additional  representative:  provided,  that  no 
town  shall  be  divided  or  the  boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any 
city  so  altered  as  to  increase  the  number  of  representatives  to 
which  such  town  or  city  may  be  entitled  by  the  next  preced- 
ing census;  and  provided  further,  that,  to  those  towns  and 
cities  which  since  the  last  census  have  been  divided  or  had 
their  boundaries  or  ward  lines  changed,  the  general  court  in 
session  next  before  these  amendments  shall  take  effect  shall 
equitably  apportion  representation  in  such  manner  that  the 


646     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

number  shall  not  be  greater  than  it  would  have  been  had  no 
such  division  or  alteration  been  made. 

"ARTICLE  10.  Whenever  any  town,  place,  or  city  ward 
shall  have  less  than  800  such  inhabitants,  the  general  court 
shall  authorize  such  town,  place  or  ward,  to  elect  and  send  to 
the  general  court  a  representative  such  proportionate  part  of 
the  time,  in  each  period  of  ten  years,  as  the  number  of  its  in- 
habitants shall  bear  to  800;  but  the  general  court  shall  not 
authorize  any  such  town,  place,  or  ward  to  elect  and  send  such 
representative,  except  as  herein  provided;  provided,  that  the 
legislature  may  authorize  contiguous  towns,  or  contiguous 
towns  and  wards,  having,  respectively,  less  than  800  inhabi- 
tants, but  whose  inhabitants  in  the  aggregate  equal  or  exceed 
800,  to  unite  for  the  purpose  of  electing  a  representative,  if 
each  town  so  decides  by  major  vote,  at  a  meeting  called  for 
the  purpose;  and  the  votes  of  towns,  thus  united,  shall  be 
cast,  counted,  returned,  and  declared),  as  the  votes  for  sena- 
tors are  cast,  counted,  returned,  and  declared;  and  the  gov- 
ernor shall,  fourteen  days  before  the  first  Wednesday  of  each 
biennial  session  of  the  legislature,  issue  his  summons  to  such 
persons  as  appear  to  be  chosen  representatives,  by  a  plurality 
of  votes,  to  attend  and  take  their  seats  on  that  day." 

The  undersigned,  a  minority  of  the  Committee  on  Legisla- 
tive Department,  who  have  had  under  consideration  the  ques- 
tion of  representation  in  the  house  of  representatives,  cannot 
agree  with  the  majority,  and,  therefore,  submit  the  accom- 
panying amendment  and  recommend  its  adoption.  They  are 
not  prepared  now  to  submit  a  report  in  detail  and  ask  leave  to 
file  such  report  this  afternoon. 

ELMER  E.  WOODBURY, 
GEORGE  E.  COCHRANE, 
GEORGE  S.  PEAVEY, 
HORACE  K  COLBATH, 
ABRAHAM  M.  MITCHELL, 
DANIEL  W.  RUGG. 
HERBERT  0.  HADLEY, 
JAMES  M.  HEALEY. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  64T 

A  minority  of  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department, 
to  whom  was  referred  all  resolutions  concerning  article  nine, 
part  second  of  the  Constitution,  relating  to  the  composition 
of  the  general  court,  having  considered  the  same,  report  the 
same  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  part  second,  article  nine,  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, be  amended  by  striking  out  the  words  'eighteen  hun- 
dred/ in  the  eighth  line  of  said  article,  and  inserting  in  place 
thereof  the  words  'twenty-four  hundred/  and  by  striking  out 
the  words  'twelve  hundred,'  in  the  tenth  line  of  said  section, 
and  inserting  in  place  thereof  the  words  'eighteen  hundred/ 
so  that  said  section  as  amended  shall  read: 

"ARTICLE  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  this 
state,  a  representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and 
founded  upon  principles  of  equality,  and,  in  order  that  such 
representation  may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit, 
every  town,  or  place  entitled  to  town  privileges,  and  wards 
of  cities  having  600  inhabitants  by  the  last  general  census  of 
the  state,  taken  by  authority  of  the  United  States  or  of  this 
state,  may  elect  one  representative;  if  2,400  such  inhabitants, 
may  elect  two  representatives;  and  so  proceeding  in  that 
proportion,  making  1,800  such  inhabitants  the  mean  increas- 
ing number  for  any  additional  representative;  provided,  that 
no  town  shall  be  divided  or  the  boundaries  of  the  wards  of 
any  city  so  altered  as  to  increase  the  number  of  representa- 
tives to  which  such  town  or  city  may  be  entitled  by  the  next 
preceding  census;  and  provided  further,  that,  to  those  towns 
and  cities  which  since  the  last  census  have  been  divided  or 
had  their  boundaries  or  ward  lines  changed,  the  general  court 
in  session  next  before  these  amendments  shall  take  effect 
shall  equitably  apportion  representation  in  such  a  manner 
that  the  number  shall  not  be  greater  than  it  would  have  been 
had  no  such  division  or  alteration  been  made." 

The  Committee  on  Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was 
Tef erred  the  several  proposed  amendments  to  articles  nine  and 


648     JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ten  of  part  second  of  the  Constitution,  relating  to  representa- 
tion in  the  house  of  representatives,  having  considered  the 
same,  the  undersigned  members  of  the  committee,  recom- 
mend the  amendments  of  said  article  nine,  of  part  second  of 
the  Constitution,  embodied  in  the  foregoing  resolution  here- 
with respectfully  submitted.  Your  committee,  in  the  discharge 
of  the  difficult  and  responsible  duties  committed  to  them,  in 
the  effort  to  reach  a  basis  that  would  meet  the  approbation  of 
the  Convention^  and  such  as,  if  adopted  by  the  Convention, 
would  ultimately  meet  the  approval  of  the  people  when  sub- 
mitted to  them,  have  carefully  considered,  (1)  the  merits  re- 
spectively of  the  various  proposed  amendments,  (2)  the  recom- 
mendations of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  as  indicated  by 
their  several  votes,  (3)  the  imperative  demand  for  some  rea- 
sonable reduction  in  the  membership  of  the  house,  (4)  what 
proposed  revision  of  the  Constitution,  upon  this  subject, 
would  probably  be  approved  by  the  qualified  voters  of  the 
state,  when  the  same  shall  be  laid  before  the  towns  and  wards 
for  action  thereon,  and  considering  those  various  elements, 
your  committee  have  been  brought  to  the  conclusion  that  the 
revision  proposed  and  embodied  in  the  resolution  herewith 
submitted  is  the  most  equitable  and  practicable  attainable, 
under  existing  circumstances  and  conditions. 

The  adoption  and  execution  of  this  method  of  revision  will 
secure  a  substantial  reduction  in  the  membership  of  the 
house  of  representatives.  This  basis  applied  to  the  popula- 
tion of  the  state,  as  shown  by  the  last  United  States  census, 
will  reduce  the  membership  of  the  house  of  representatives 
to  325. 

Your  committee  are  decidedly  of  the  opinion  that  the  ratio 
of  three  to  one,  established  by  the  founders  of  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  eulogized  by  the  majority  report  on  these  measures, 
has  no  charm,  and  that  the  circumstances  of  the  conditions 
we  are  attempting  to  relieve  should,  within  reasonable 
bounds,  continue  this  ratio.  They  do  not  feel  there  is  the 
slightest  occasion  for  any  apprehension,  that  the  changes  re- 
sulting from  a  different  ratio  in  reperesentaticn,  will  so  "dis- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  649 

turb  the  existing  relations  of  the  people  of  the  different 
towns  and  wards  to  the  state  government/'  as  to  warrant  any 
opposition  to  the  proposed  resolution. 

In  fixing  on  the  600  unit  of  population  as  the  basis  of  '.he 
first  representative  we  have  strictly  adihered  to  the  majority 
vote  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole.  While  we  regard  the 
votes  of  said  committee  as  merely  declaratory,  still  we  have 
felt  that  so  far  as  is  practicable,  the  declarations  of  said  com- 
mittee should  be  closely  regarded.  If  the  vote  of  the  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole,  limiting  the  size  of  the  house  to  between 
280  and  300  members,  and  also  its  vote  for  the  600  popula- 
tion as  a  basis  for  first  representative  be  strictly  followed,  it 
would  make  2,600  population  the  number  required  for  the 
mean  increase  for  all  successive  representatives.  This  mean 
appeared  to  us  manifestly  too  large,  and  demanded  a  greater 
sacrifice  on  the  part  of  the  larger  towns  than  the  exigency  of 
the  occasion  required.  Therefore,  your  committee  felt  justi- 
fied in  departing  so  far  from  the  recommendation  of  the 
Committee  of  the  Whole,  as  would  reduce  the  sacrifice  of  the 
larger  towns  to  reasonable  proportions.  As  the  accompany- 
ing report  indicates  your  committee  have  fixed  the  increasing 
mean  at  1,800  population.  It  has  impressed  itself  firmly 
upon  your  committee  that  if  any  amendment  to  said  article 
nine  would  be  adopted  by  this  Convention  and  go  to  the  peo- 
ple with  any  hope  of  ratification  by  them,  it  must  conform 
as  nearly  as  possible  to  the  existing  system  of  representation; 
that  the  demand  for  a  smaller  house  than  the  present  is  not 
so  strong  as  to  warrant  any  great  reduction;  that  the  contri- 
bution to  any  reduction  should  be  made  by  those  towns  which 
will  feel  least  the  loss  of  representatives,  and  that  the  state 
should  not  take  any  further  steps  in  the  un-American  policy 
of  disfranchising  towns. 

The  Committee  of  the  Whole  has,  by  a  large  majority,  de- 
clared against  the  district  system,  and  it  does  not  seem  fair 
to  your  committee  to  present  to  111  towns  the  option  of  hunt- 
ing up  an  agreeable  partner  for  a  district  system,  or  of  being 
disfranchised  one  third  of  the  time. 


650     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

We  respectfully  and  earnestly  recommend  the  adoption  of 
the  resolution  herewith  submitted. 

ELMER  E.  WOODBURY, 
GEORGE  E.  COCHRANE,  ' 
GEORGE  S.  PEAVEY, 
HORACE  N.  COLBATH, 
ABRAHAM  M.  MITCHELL,, 
DANIEL  W.  RUGG, 
HERBERT  0.  HADLEY, 
JAMES  M.  HEALEY. 

The  reports  were  accepted. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough  moved  that  the  minority  report 
be  substituted  for  that  of  the  majority,  the  motion  to  lie  over 
until  after  a  resolution  submitted  by  Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  that  the  reports  of  the  Committee  on  Legislative 
Department,  relative  to  representation  in  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives be  made  the  special  order  for  to-morrow  at  2 
o'clock  and  that  the  rules  be  so  far  suspended  that  this  order 
take  precedence  of  all  other  business  and  that  the  vote  on  the 
reports  and  accompanying  resolutions  be  taken  not  later  than 
4  o'clock  to-morrow  afternoon." 

Upon  a  viva  voce  vote  the  resolution  presented  by  Mr.  Ly- 
ford of  Concord  was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Lyford,  the  majority  and  minority  re- 
ports were  ordered  printed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 

AFTERNOON. 

The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER,  17,  1902.  651 

Mr.  Buxton  of  Boscawen  offered  the  following  resolution, 
which  was  adopted: 

"Resolved,  That  a  committee  of  five  he  appointed  to  con- 
sider the  expediency  of  publishing  a  report  of  the  proceedings 
of  the  Convention  verbatim,  or  in  an  abbreviated  form,  and, 
if  deemed  expedient,  to  recommend  a  plan  for  the  publication 
and  distribution  of  such  reports." 

The  special  order  assigned  for  2  o'clock,  the  resolution  of 
Mr.  Niles  of  Concord,  relative  to  the  supreme  and  superior 
courts,  together  with  the  recommendation  of  the  committee 
that  the  same  ought  to  be  adopted,  was  taken  from  the  table. 

Question,  Upon  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of  the 
committee. 

Mr.  Little  of  Manchester — I  expected  that  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin  would  be  here  at  this  time  and  have  some- 
thing to  say  in  behalf  of  the  report  of  the  committee,  but  he 
is  somewhat  ill  to-day  and  unable  to  be  present,  and  as  a 
member  of  the  committee,  I  wish  to  say  a  few  words  in  behalf 
of  the  report.  I  assure  you,  gentlemen,  that  I  will  detain  you 
only  a  few  minutes. 

As  a  preface  to  my  remarks,  I  will  read  two  or  three  para- 
graphs from  an  address  prepared  by  the  Hon.  A.  S.  Batchel- 
lor  of  Littleton,  and  read  at  the  last  annual  meeting  of  the 
New  Hampshire  Bar  association.  Mr.  Batchellor  says: 

"It  is  to-day  a  proposition  seldom,  if  ever,  questioned  that 
the  provisions  of  the  Constitution  relative  to  the  removal  of 
judges  from  the  supreme  and  superior  courts  by  legislative 
address,  except  for  insanity,  permanent  physical  disability,  or 
conviction  of  crime  by  due  process  of  law,  is  unwise  in  theory 
and  mischievous  in  operation. 

"It  is  also  apparently  a  well-settled  conviction  with  the 
people  of  this  state,  that  the  assumption  that  changes  in  the 
judiciary  acts  under  which  the  powers  and  constituents  of 
the  courts  are  defined,  and1  the  methods  of  performing  their 


652     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

duties  prescribed,  may  be  employed  in  any  way  or  by  any 
contrivance,  so  as  to  deprive  the  judges  of  the  supreme  or 
superior  court  of  their  offices  without  regular  proceedings  for 
impeachment  or  by  address  strictly  limited  to  cases  of  in- 
sanity, permanent  physical  disability,  or  conviction  of  crime 
by  due  process  of  law,  is  an  unsound  and  unjustifiable  theory 
of  constitutional  construction/"' 

He  further  adds — 

"The  conviction  has  become  practically  settled  among  the 
people,  viewing  this  subject  from  every  standpoint  in  the 
light  both  of  reason  and  experience,  that  the  practice  of 
breaking  in  upon  the  tenure  of  office  of  the  judges  of  the 
higher  courts  within  the  constitutional  period,  continuing 
during  good  behavior  and  up  to  the  constitutional  limit  of 
seventy  years,  and  imposing  upon  them  a  tenure  of  judicial 
office  to  continue  only  during  the  pleasure  of  the  legislature, 
should  not  only  be  discontinued  in  practice,  but  should  be 
prohibited  by  adequate  amendments  of  the  Constitution." 

Mr.  Batchellor,  who  is  one  of  our  able  and  scholarly  men, 
has  given  this  subject  much  thought,  and  I  wish  that  every 
member 'of  this  Convention  could  have  the  privilege  of  read- 
ing his  address.  It  seems  to  me  that  his  argument  is  sound 
and  unanswerable. 

Our  national  supreme  court  is  a  permanent  court.  The 
judges  composing  that  court  cannot  be  removed  by  legislative 
action,  except  for  malpractice  and  maladministration  in  office 
or  by  address  on  the  ground  of  mental  or  physical  disability 
to  perform  the  duties  of  their  office.  Washington  said,  "The 
main  pillar  of  our  system  of  government  is  our  supreme 
court,"  referring  particularly  to  its  permanency.  It  has 
served  to  perpetuate  our  government,  and  has  often  delivered 
us  from  impending  crises.  Every  student  of  history  knows 
that  the  principal  act  of  John  Adams  while  president  was  the 
appointment  of  John  Marshall  as  chief  justice  of  the  supreme 
court.  It  is  also  well  known  that  after  Jefferson  became  pres- 
ident, the  decisions  of  that  court  from  a  political  point  of 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  653 

view  did  not  please  the  party  in  power  and  the  members  of 
that  party  were,  anxious  to  remove  Chief  Justice  Marshall  and 
his  associates  from  their  positions.  It  was  not  within  the 
power  of  Jefferson  and  his  followers  to  remove  those  justices 
and  the  people  of  this  country  ought  to  be  thankful  that  such 
was  the  case.  The  decisions  rendered  by  that  able  court,  in 
those  early  days,  did  much  to  rescue  our  government  from 
impending  disasters. 

Every  argument  which  applies  to  the  permanency  of  our 
national  court,  also  applies  to  the  permanency  of  our  state 
court.  During  the  long  period  of  114  years  under  provincial 
and  state  governments  no  attempt  was  made  to  remove  one  of 
our  judges  by  legislative  address.  In  1855,  the  American,  or 
Know-Nothing  party  came  into  power,  and  for  political  rea- 
sons removed  the  judges  of  our  supreme  court.  The  same 
thing  was  done  by  the  Democrats  in  1874,  and  again  by  the 
Republicans  in  1876.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  a  member  of 
this  Convention,  who  has  given  the  matter  any  consideration, 
who  does  not  now  regret  that  such  a  course  was  taken.  If 
there  is  any  one  thing  made  prominent  in  our  Constitution  it 
i>  that  the  three  departments  of  our  government,  the  legisla- 
tive, the  executive,  and  the  judicial,  should  be  kept  as  separate 
from,  and  independent  of,  each  other  as  the  nature  of  a  free 
government  will  admit.  For  this  reason  it  does  not  seem  to 
me  that  we  should  allow  our  legislative  department,  for  polit- 
ical reasons,  to  remove  the  judges  of  our  highest  court. 

It  has  been  said  by  some  of  the  speakers  here  that  we  are 
seeking  to  abridge  the  rights  of  the  people.  It  is  our  purpose 
to  place  our  supreme  court  in  a  position  where  its  members 
cannot  be  deposed  whenever  the  legislature  takes  such  a  whim 
or  fancy.  In  our  opinion  the  results  will  then  be  more  satis- 
factory to  the  people.  We  are  planning  to  give  them  more  teffi- 
cient  service.  It  is  a  well-known  fact  that  there  are  occasion- 
ally times  when  large  numbers  of  the  people,  from  political 
excitement  or  other  causes,  lose  their  bearings,  and  at  such 
times  it  is  highly  important  that  we  have  one  department  of 
our  state  government  that  remains  intact,  firm,  and  unswerv- 
ing. 


654     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

At  the  last  election  the  Democratic  party  incorporated  the 
following  plank  in  its  platform: 

"We  demand!  the  enactment  of  a  constitutional  amendment 
which  shall  place  our  courts  upon  a  permanent  basis,  secure 
from  attacks  from  any  source,  and  independent  of  the  legis- 
lative branch  of  the  state  government/' 

A  similar  article  was  made  a  part  of  the  platform  of  the 
Eepublican  party,  adopted  September  17,  1902,  as  follows: 

"We  favor  such  amendment  of  the  state  Constitution  as 
will  make  the  tenure  of  office  of  the  judges  of  the  present 
supreme  and  superior  courts  as  secure,  with  the  exception  of 
the  age  limit,  as  that  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of 
the  United  States." 

I  was  somewhat  surprised  yesterday  when  prominent  men 
who  had  voted  in  favor  of  the  platforms  of  their  respective 
parties  at  the  state  conventions  arose  here  and  said  they 
cllid  not  believe  in  that  doctrine.  I  do  not  understand  3iow 
men  could  go  into  those  conventions  and  vote  as  they  did, 
and  then  come  here  and  say  that  they  do  not  believe  our 
supreme  court  should  be  made  a  permanent  court.  They 
must  have  experienced  a  sudden  conversion. 

This  subject  was  brought  before  the  Bar  association  of  our 
state  at  one  of  its  largest  meetings  and,  I  am  informed,  was 
approved  by  a  unanimous  vote.  I  know  there  has  been  a 
tendency  on  the  part  of  some  members  of  this  Convention  to 
belittle  the  legal  profession.  During  a  discussion  here  a  few 
days  since  one  member  referred  to  the  "Iaw3rers?  trust."  He 
is  a  lawyer  himself,  and  I  suppose  he  referred  to  this  trust 
because  he  is  not  in  on  the  ground  floor.  I  do  not  think  any 
one  will  deny  that  the  bar  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  has 
among  its  members  many  able  and  representative  men.  It 
certainly  has  men  who  have  given  this  question  much  consid- 
eration, and  it  seems  to  me  that  their  opinions  expressed  in 
resolutions  adopted  at  their  meeting  should  have  some  weight 
with  Ws  Convention. 

I  trust,  gentlemen,  that  the  report  of  the  committee  will 
be  adopted,  and  that  a  start,  a  least,  will  be  made  here  toward 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  655 

placing  the  supreme  court  of  our  state  upon  a  permanent 
basis. 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord — The  Convention  will  readily  appre- 
ciate that  it  is  impossible  in  ten  minutes  to  give  this  question 
any  such  consideration  as  it  deserves.  I  had  not  prepared  an 
argument  at  all,  assuming  that  it  would  not  be  considered 
here  a  debatable  question,  and  I  did  not,  until  yesterday  after- 
noon, know  that  there  would  be  the  slightest  opposition  to  it. 
I  was  obliged  in  a  short  time,  and  not  anticipating  the  adop- 
tion of  this  rule  limiting  debate,  to  endeavor  to  get  together 
some  slight  material  for  an  argument.  I  shall  be  obliged  to 
abandon  such  argument  as  I  had  and  try  to  pick  out  the 
essential  points  of  this  matter. 

I  want  to  read  again,  for  the  purpose  of  emphasis  upon  cer- 
tain words,  the  platform  of  the  two  parties  upon  which  we 
were  elected.  The  platform  of  the  Democratic  party  was  as 
follows: 

"We  demand  the  enactment  of  a  constitutional  amendment 
which  shall  place  our  courts  upon  a  permanent  basis,  secure 
from  attacks  from  any  source,  and  independent  of  the  legis- 
lative branch  of  the  state  government," 

And  the  platform  of  the  Eepublican  party  is  as  follows: 

"We  favor  such  amendment  of  the  state  Constitution  as  will 
make  the  tenure  of  office  of  the  judges  of  the  present  supreme 
and  superior  courts  as  secure,  with  the  exception  of  the  age 
limit,  as  that  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of  the  United 
States." 

Now  the  effect  of  these  declarations  upon  our. standing 
here,  and  upon  our  duties  here,  is  undoubtedly  an  open  ques- 
tion, but  I  think  the  fact  that  they  were  incorporated  in  the 
platforms  of  both  parties,  and  that  they  were  before  the  peo- 
ple when  we  were  elected  to  this  Convention,  and  considering 
that  such  a  proposition  regarding  a  constitutional  convention 
is  an  extraordinary  thing  in  the  platforms  of  a  party,  which 
generally  relate  only  to  legislation — I  think  that  the  attention 
of  the  people  was  called  to  this  matter  in  an  unusual  way,  and 


656    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

they  undoubtedly  thought,  as  many  of  them  at  least  as  ga\7e 
attention  to  the  platforms,  that  such  an  amendment  would  be 
adopted  by  this  Convention.  I  think  they  have  a  right  to  ex- 
pect that  we  would  recommend  such  an  amendment. 

Now,  one  of  these  platforms  announced  the  proposition 
that  the  judicial  office  should  be  "as  secure,  with  the  exception 
of  the  age  limit,  as  that  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of 
the  United  States."  The  proposition  has  been  announced 
here  that  the  position  of  the  judges  of  the  supreme  court  of 
the  United  States  is  not  secure.  I  believe  it  is  an  established 
fact  that  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  rests  upon 
the  Constitution,  and  it  is  impossible  to  modify  it  and  change 
it  in  any  way  by  legislation.  Congress  has  the  power  under 
the  Constitution  of  the  United  States,  which  ought  to  be  read 
here,  to  found  inferior  courts,  but  when  they  are  founded  and 
established  a  provision  of  the  Constitution  says  that  not  only 
the  judges  of  the  supreme  court,  but  also  those  of  the  inferior 
courts  shall  hold  their  offices  during  good  behavior,  subject 
only  to  removal  by  impeachment  for  misconduct.  The  in- 
violability of  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  has  not 
been  adjudicated  or  decided,  and  the  proposition  that  they 
are  inviolable  has  not  been  raised,  because  no  one  has  doubted 
it,  and  the  principle  of  inviolability  has  been  lived  up  to  by 
Washington  himself,  and  by  Jefferson,  who  had  the  strongest 
motives  for  overturning  the  supreme  court,  and  who  would 
have  overturned  it  if  he  could;  but  the  understanding  not 
only  of  the  administrations,  but  of  the  people  at  large,  has 
been  that  the  supreme  court  of  the  United  States  is  inviolable, 
as  it  must  be  to  be  absolutely  independent. 

I  have  to  jump  from  one  thing  to  another  on  account  of  the 
limited  time  before  me.  Let  me  read  what  our  Constitution 
says  in  article  thirty-five  of  the  Bill  of  Rights: 

"It  is  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  rights  of  every 
individual,  his  life,  liberty,  property,  and  character,  that  there 
be  an  impartial  interpretation  of  the  laws  and  administration 
of  justice.  It  is  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  be  tried  by  judges 
as  impartial  as  the  lot  of  humanity  will  admit.  It  is,  there- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  657 

fore,  not  only  the  best  policy,  but  for  the  security  of  the 
rights  of  the  people,  that  the  judges  of  the  supreme  judicial 
court  should  hold  their  offices  so  long  as  tKey  behave  well, 
subject,  however,  to  such  limitations  on  account  of  age  as 
may  be  provided  by  the  Constitution  of  the  state,  and  that 
they  should  have  honorable  salaries,  ascertained  and  estab- 
lished by  standing  laws." 

It  was  for  the  security  of  the  people,  not  for  the  security  of 
the  courts,  or  in  favor  of  any  classes,  but  for  the  S2curity  of 
the  people  that  the  members  of  the  supreme  couit,  being  once 
appointed,  should  know  that  they  will  hold  their  offices  to 
which  they  have  been  appointed,  and  that  that  office  shall 
continue  to  exist  and  they  shall  continue  to  occupy  it  until  the 
term  for  which  they  have  been  appointed  shall  have  expired 
by  the  age  limitation. 

Webster  laid  that  down  in  an  argument  before  a  Constitu- 
tional Convention  in  Massachusetts  in  1820,  where  a  resolu- 
tion was  introduced  prohibiting  the  removal  of  the  judges  by 
address,  because  it  was  feared  that  removal  by  address  would 
be  used  for  political  purposes.  Webster  says: 

"As  the  Constitution  now  stands,  all  judges  are  liable  to  be 
removed  from  office  by  the  governor,  with  the  consent  of  the 
council,  on  the  address  of  the  two  houses  of  the  legislature. 
It  is  not  made  necessary  that  the  two  houses  should  give  any 
reasons  for  their  address,  or  that  the  judge  should  have  an  op- 
portunity to  be  heard.  I  look  upon  this  as  against  common 
right,  as  well  as  repugnant  to  the  general  principles  of  the 
government." 

I  need  not  go  over  the  provisions  of  our  Constitution  in 
regard  to  the  appointment  of  our  judges.  All  know  that  the 
Constitution  now  provides  that  the  judges  shall  be  appointed 
by  the  governor  and  council,  and  shall  hold  office  during  good 
behavior,  and  until  their  removal  by  impeachment  for  miscon- 
duct, or  by  address.  It  has  been  held  in  Massachusetts  that 
whenever  the  legislature  asks  the  governor  to  remove  any 
judge  from  any  court  it  can  be  done  without  giving  any  rea- 
son therefor;  and  that  is  a  feature  in  our  own  Constitution 
42 


658    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

that  we  are  attempting  to  remedy  by  this  proposed  amend- 
ment. 

During  the  history  of  the  courts  in  this  state,  there  have 
been  five  overturnlngs.  Five,  times  the  legislature  has  taken 
upon  itself  the  duty — if  you  call  it  a  duty — of  enacting  laws 
changing  the  courts,  simply  for  the  purpose  of  disposing  of 
the  judges  of  the  courts,  or  certain  of  them.  Thus,  by  indi- 
rection, they  accomplished  what  it  is  plain  the  Constitution 
intended  should  not  be  accomplished,  and  their  acts  have  ren- 
dered the  tenure  of  the  office  of  our  judges  insecure,  although 
it  is  in  direct  violation  of  the  Constitution.  There  is  no  power 
that  can  prevent  it,  because  the  court  that  comes  in  under  the 
new  act  is,  of  course,  so  prejudiced  that  it  cannot  sit,  and  if  it 
did  sit  its  decisions  would  be  of  no  value,  and  the  old  court 
cannot  Bit,  having  been  ousted  by  the  act  of  the  legislature, 
and  so  by  force  the  legislature  has  rendered  null  and  void  the 
Constitution  of  this  state. 

You  cannot  read  the  address  of  Mr.  A.  S.  Batchellor  to  the 
Bar  Association  of  New  Hampshire,  as  president  of  that  asso- 
ciation, and  who  is  our  state  historian,  without  coming  to  the 
conclusion  that  it  was  the  purpose  of  our  Constitution  that 
the  courts  of  New  Hampshire  should  be  beyond  the  reach  of 
the  legislature,  and  that  the  legislature  could  n.ot  depose  them 
by  direction  or  indirection,  except  for  misconduct,  for  which 
they  might  be  impeached;  but  the  legislature  has  nullified 
that,  and,  as  I  have  already  said,  five  times  they  have  over- 
turned our  courtis,  and  every  time  for  political  reasons.  This 
should  be  remedied,  and  it  is  the  purpose  of  this  amendment 
to  remedy  it. 

Mr.  Harriman  of  Nashua — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen :  I 
care  nothing  for  any  platform,  so  far  as  this  issue  is  con- 
cerned, that  has  been  laid  down  by  the  Eepublican  party.  I 
care  nothing,  Mr.  President,  so  far  as  this  measure  is  con- 
cerned, for  any  platform  that  has  been  laid  down  by  the  Dem- 
ocratic party,  or  any  other  party.  So  far  as  I  am  concerned 
upon  this  measure,  I  am  confronted  with  the  circumstances 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  659 

that  exist  at  the  present  time  in  this  Constitutional  Conven- 
tion. 

A  distinguished  delegate  from  the  city  of  Manchester  has 
said  that  the  judiciary  system,  the  courts,  is  the  bed  rock  of  a 
republican  form  of  government.  I  say,  Mr.  President,  that 
the  bed  rock  of  a  republican  form  of  government  is  the  will 
of  the  people. 

Only  a  few  years  ago  a  dual  court  system  was  established. 
That  dual  court  system  was  unsatisfactory  to  a  large  portion 
of  the  people  of  this  state,  and  unsatisfactory  to  a  large  num- 
ber of  the  members  of  the  bar.  Then  the  power  that  still  re- 
mains with  the  people  was  evoked  and  the  court  was  changed, 
and  that  system  of  courts  which  was  unsatisfactory  was  over- 
turned. At  the  last  session  of  the  legislature  of  this  state,  a 
dual  court  system  was  again  established,  and  that  dual  court 
system  is  still  on  trial.  It  may  be  satisfactory  to  the  people, 
and  it  may  be  unsatisfactory  to  the  people;  but  if  this  meas- 
ure is  adopted  here  and  ratified  by  the  people  of  this  state, 
then  there  is  no  remedy,  however  unsatisfactory  the  present 
dual  system  may  be. 

I  am  somewhat  shocked,  as  great  men  say,  in  these  times, 
when  great  men  die,  that  for  the  first  time  in  the  history  of 
New  Hampshire,  <as  I  understand  it,  a  measure  is  brought 
forth  here  and  now  to  make  the  courts  of  this  state  perma- 
nent. It  seems  to  me,  Mr.  President,  this  is  not  just  the  time 
to  do  it.  An  older  man  than  myself,  a  distinguished  mem- 
ber of  the  bar  of  this  state  and  of  this  Convention,  appeared 
before  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire  two  years  ago  and 
strenuously  opposed  the  measure  that  established  the  present 
dual  system.  There  was  much  opposition  to  the  bill  and  it 
created  quite  a  disturbance. 

Now,  then,  if  the  dual  system  should  be  satisfactory,  it  will 
be  retained,  but  if  it  should  turn  out  to  be  unsatisfactory  to 
the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  then  I  want  that 
power  left  with  the  people  which  again  can  be  made  effective 
to  change  an  unsatisfactory  condition  of  things. 

Mr.  Howe  of  Concord — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 


660    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  Convention:  It  must  be  admitted  that  the  principles  in- 
volved in  the  resolution  offered  by  the  committee  are  im- 
portant. It  involves  the  principle  whether  the  people  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  shall  commit  themselves  to  the  prin- 
ciple of  a  permanent  judiciary  in  the  state. 

Now,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen,  I,  for  one,  do  not  be- 
lieve in  that  scheme.  I  do  not  believe  it  is  right  to  make  one 
branch  of  this  government  permanent  and  indestructible,  and 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  common  p3ople  of  this  state  who 
have  created  the  three  branches,  and  to*  leave  the  other  two 
branches  as  they  are.  I  think  it  is  a  radical  departure  from 
the  principles  of  the  Constitution  and  from  right  principles. 

Every  change  in  the  court  which  has  been  referred  to  as  an 
argument  for  this  change  in  the  Constitution  occurred  before 
the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1S89,  and  if  we  assume  that 
those  changes  were  all  bad  we  must  assume  that  the  last 
change  was  a.  change  for  the  good,  and  it  is  the  theory  now 
that  we  should  perpetuate  the  result  of  the  last  change.  Sup- 
pose the  Constitutional  Convention  of  1889  had  taken  exactly 
the  step  which  we  are  now  invited  to  take,  then  to-day,  instead 
of  this  good  system,  this  ideal  system  composed  of  a  supreme 
court  and  a  superior  court., — suppose  in  1889  the  system  then 
in  existence  had  been  perpetuated  by  a  constitutional  amend- 
ment, we  never  could  have  had  the  court  which  we  now  have. 

I  say,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen,  that  this  thing  should 
be  left  where  it  is.  If  it  turns  out  upon  trial  that  the  court 
system  which  we  now  have  is  the  best  system  which  we  can 
procure  we  will  certainly  kesp  it.  If  it  turns  out  upon  trial 
that  the  system  which  we  have  lately  adopted  is  not  the  best 
system  and  we  wish  to  change  it,  we  ought  not  to  be  tied  down 
to  a  system  which  is  worse  than  some  other,  but  the  people 
should  have  the  right  to  change  it  at  any  time. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — I  regret  exceedingly  that  my  sense 
of  duty  compels  me  to  take  sides  opposite  the  gentleman  who 
introduced  this  resolution.  I  am  fully  aware  that  in  five 
minutes  we  can  only  glance  at  the  different  features  of  the 
matter  presented.  I  regard  this  resolution  as  perhaps  the 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  661 

most  important  thing  that  has  ccme  before  this  Convention;  I 
regard  it  as  more  far-reaching  in  its  consequences  than  any- 
thing that  has  come  before  us.  It  is  overruling  and  overturn- 
ing the  policy  of  the  state  since  the  formation  of  its  govern- 
ment. I  leave  to  ethers  who  may  speak,  declarations  concern- 
ing the  courts  in  other  states,  their  tenure  of  office,  and  their 
method  of  procedure.  I  desire  to  refer  very  briefly  to  the 
public  aspects  of  this  case. 

I  know  of  no  general  desire  or  request  anywhere  in  the 
state,  nor  of  any  public  sentiment,  that  demands  anything  of 
this  kind.  We  are  told  that  the  Democratic  party  and  the  Re- 
publican party  in  their  conventions  have  asked  for  this  action, 
and  that  the  bar  association  of  the  state  has  also  asked  for 
it.  At  the  bar  meeting  there  may  have  been  present  150 
people — certainly  not  more.  I  suppose  there  are  four  times 
as  many  practising  lawyers  in  the  state,  three  fourths  of  whom 
were  not  present  and  did  not  assent  to  such  measure.  As  to 
the  platform  of  the  Republican  party,  I  have  only  to  say  that 
I  profess  no  ability  to  declare  its  meaning — leaving  to  those 
gentlemen  accustomed  to  interpret  that  party's  declarations 
to  decide  its  real  intent. 

As  to  the  platform  of  the  Democratic  party,  I  think  I  have 
demonstrated  that  I  am  a  pretty  good  partisan  Democrat — 
but  I  utterly  and  wholh7  repudiate  the  idea  that  a  dozen  gen- 
tlemen, in  a  parlor  of  the  Eagle  Hotel,  the  night  before  a  con- 
vention, can  formulate  a  platform  or  rule  of  action  on  a  non- 
partisan  question,  binding  upon  the  independent  Democratic 
voters  of  New  Hampshire.  We  are  not  here  as  partisans,  but 
as  representatives  of  the  people  of  the  state,  and  we  arc  here 
to  retain  the  well-tried  policies  of  the  state  which  have  been 
approved  from  its  earliest  days,  as  has  been  alluded  to  in 
speeches  upon  this  floor. 

We  have  existed  under  the  system  of  courts  responsible  to 
the  people.  The  Bill  of  Rights  says  that  all  power  is  orig- 
inally derived  from  the  people,  and  all  magistrates  and  offi- 
cers of  the  government  are  representatives  and  agents  of  the 
people  at  all  time?,  and  are  responsible  to  them.  How  are 
they  quickly  responsible  if  we  place  them  beyond  reach  of  the 
legislature? 


662    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

This  measure  is  revolutionary.  The  whole  theory  of  our 
government  is  contrary  to  it.  It  is  taking  power  from  the 
hands  of  the  people  an.d  putting  the  courts  beyond  their  reach. 

There  are  gentlemen  in  this  hall  who  have  seen  some  of 
the  five  overturnings  that  have  been  mentioned.  So  far  as  I 
know,  the  overturnings  were  for  good  and  sufficient  rea- 
sons. The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  is  well 
acquainted  with  the  reasons  for  the  overturning  of  1855,  and 
there  are  others  that  are  as  well  acquainted  with  it.  It  was 
for  the  purpose  of  getting  rid  of  Jonathan  Kittredge  that  a 
later  change,  championed  by  A.  H.  Cragin  and  N.  B.  Bryant, 
followed.  When  another  party  came  into  power  in  1871  the 
court  was  again  overturned,  and  again  in  1874,  and  then  the 
same  operation  was  gone  through  last  winter.  I  do  not  know 
what  harm  any  of  these  changes  have  done,  but  it  would  do- 
harm  to  take  this  power  of  change  out  of  the  hands  of  the 
people. 

I  do  not  think  that  there  is  anything  either  sacred  or  holy 
in  the  personnel  of  a  court,  or  in  its  official  character.  This 
is  a  "government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  for  the  peo- 
ple," and  we  are  here  to  keep  all  the  power  in  the  hands  of 
the  people  that  they  have,  not  to  give  it  up,  not  to  make  a 
revolution  in  the  policy  of  New  Hampshire,  not  to  depart 
from  the  paths  of  our  fathers,  but  to  go  on  in  the  future  as  in 
the  past;  to  keep  the  power  of  establishing  courts  in  the  hands 
of  the  people,  and  to  keep  the  courts  where  they  can  be 
answerable  in  the  popular  forum  for  any  wrongs  that  may  be 
done.  They  should  be  amenable  to  change.  The  people  are 
the  only  power  and  I  trust  this  Convention  will  put  far  away 
from  it  the  idea  of  constructing  a  court  to  be  perpetual  and 
beyond  the  reach  of  the  people  through  the  people's  repre- 
sentatives. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord — I  see  no  occasion  for  this  radical 
departure  from  the  principles  enunciated  by  our  Constitu- 
tion. 

Our  judicial   system   underwent  changes  in   1813,    IS  16,. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  663 

1855,  1874,  1876,  and  again  two  years  ago.  Have  the  rights 
of  the  people  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  been  impaired 
by  those  changes?  In  each  instance,  generally,  have  not  men 
of  eminence,  character,  and  ability  been  placed  upon  the 
bench? 

Have  not  the  people  of  this  state,  by  these  changes  in  their 
judicial  system,  given  practical  construction  to  the  constitu- 
tional provisions  with  respect  to  the  judiciary? 

Again,  if  the  construction  given  to  the  Constitution  in 
making  these  changes  was  not  justified  by  the  Constitution, 
why  was  there  not  a  judicial  construction  adverse  to  the 
action  of  the  legislature?  None  has  ever  been  given,  or  re- 
quested. 

The  promoters  of  this  proposition  are  undertaking  to  imbed 
in  the  Constitution  a  system  yet  on  trial  and  a  system  which 
in  practical  operation  has  already  shown  some  imperfections 
and  dissatisfaction. 

I  favor  the  present  system.  I  desire,  however,  to  see  this 
system  fairly  tried  before  it  is  permanently  placed  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  people. 

I  believe  our  judicial  system  is  perfectly  safe  in  the  hands 
of  the  representatives  of  the  people  of  this  state.  Our  judicial 
system,  with  these  changes,  has  produced  a  jurisprudence 
equal  to  that  of  any  state  in  the  Union.  It  has  given  us, 
under  these  various  systems,  men  of  learning,  character,  and 
eminence,  who  have  served  the  people  and  protected  their  in- 
terests. 

I  hope  we  have  the  best  system  in  existence,  but  let  us 
fairly  test  it  before  constitutionally  declaring  it  perfect. 

Mr.  Briggs  of  Manchester — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Convention:  I  have  not  troubled  this  Convention  with 
much  talk  of  mine,  and  I  do  not  propose  to  do  so  at  this  time. 
I  simply  wish  to  state  that  I  do  not  believe  in  the  amendment 
that  has  been  reported  by  the  committee.  I  do  not  believe  in 
placing  the  judicial  system  of  New  Hampshire  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  legislature — placing  the  creature  beyond  the 
reach  of  its  creator. 


664    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

I  have  nothing  to  say  in  condemnation  or  criticism  of  the 
present  members  of  either  of  our  courts,  the  supreme  or  the 
superior.  I  believe  we  have  learned,  honest,  efficient,  and  al- 
most; I  wish  to  say,  the  very  best  judges  that  we  can  select, 
and  I  have  the  fullest!  confidence  in  them.  I  have  no  doubt 
they  will  render  absolute  and  impartial  justice,  so  far  as  can 
be  obtained  under  any  system  in  this  nation. 

But  this  proposed  amendment  attempts  to  put  that  tribunal 
beyond  the  control  of  the  house  of  representatives,  and  not 
only  that,  but  beyond  the  control  of  the  people.  I  believe  the 
people  of  this  state  are  sovereigns.  I  believe  the  power  is  with 
them,  and  I  do  no>t  propose,  if  I  have  the  power  to  resist  it,  to 
have  the  sovereign  power  of  this  state  encroached  upon,  and 
to  have  a  tribunal  entrenched  in  the  Constitution  of  the  state 
and  placed  beyond  the  control  of  its  sovereign  people.  I  tell 
you,  gentlemen,  it  would  be  a  mistake  if  that  thing  was 
adopted. 

There  has  been  something  said  about  removing  judges  by 
address.  I  do  not  understand  any  judge  has  been  removed  in 
this  state  by  sending  an  address  of  the  legislature  to  the  gov- 
ernor to  remove  such  judge.  It  is  a  thing  that  has  not  been 
done  in  the  whole  history  of  New  Hampshire.  The  only  way 
changes  have  been  made  is  by  changing  the  systems  of  the 
court.  That  is  all. 

The  gentlemen  tyave  told  you  how  many  changes  of  this 
kind  have  been  made.  I  know  something  of  the  change  iri 
1855,  and  again  of  the  change  in  1874  and  1876,  and  of  the 
last  one  made.  I  did  not  favor  some  of  the  changes,  but 
whether  I  like  or  dislike  them,  I  do  not  believe  the  power 
should  be  taken  away  from  the  people  to  make  the  changes. 

I  am  willing  to  trust  the  court  that  we  have,  and  under  the 
laws  that  we  have  you  cannot  remove  a  judge  until  he  arrives 
at  seventy  years  of  age,  unless  you  prefer  charges  against  him, 
and  that  has  not  been  done  in  this  state  because  there  has 
been  no  occasion  for  it. 

Now  I  ask  you,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Con- 
vention, not  to  entrench  this  supreme  court  in  the  Constitu- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  665 

tion  so  it  cannot  be  reached.    I  hope  the  amendment  will  be 
voted  down. 

Mr.  Daley  of  Berlin — I  feel  constrained  to  make  a  remark 
or  two  upon  the  pending  question,  because  I  was  a  member  of 
the  committee  which  reported  the  resolution  that  is  now  be- 
fore this  Convention. 

I  believe,  Mr.  President,  that  the  committee  reported  this 
resolution  largely  because  they  thought  they  were  safe  in  rely- 
ing to  some  extent  upon  the  recommendation  of  the  Bar  Asso<- 
ciation  of  the  State  of  New  Hampshire.  For  one  member  of 
the  committee  I  certainly  concede  that  that  affected  my  judg- 
ment, and  I  have  net  yet  changed  it.  I  believe,  Mr.  President, 
that  above  all  the  departments  in  the  state  government  the 
supreme  court  ought  to  be  reasonably  permanent.  I  should 
not  be  so  particular  about  the  permanency  of  the  trial  court, 
which  is  called  the  superior  court,  and  which  is  coming  daily 
in  contact  with  the  people.  It  may  be  well  to  leave  that  court 
as  it  is,  but  I  do  believe  it  is  the  spirit  of  our  institutions  and 
of  our  Constitution  that  the  supreme  court,  the  court  of  last 
resort,  should  le  made  permanent,  to  the  extent  of  being  a 
constitutional  instead  of  a  legislative  institution.  A  two- 
thirds  vote  of  the  people  would  then  be  necessary  to  effect  a 
change.  Every  whim  of  the  legislature  and  every  whim  of  the 
people  which  might  arise  in  the  stress  of  political  conflicts 
would  not  expose  this  court  to  unwarranted  and  unnecessary 
changes. 

I  am  somewhat  surprised  that  the  report  of  the  committee 
has  raised  so  much  antagonism.  I  did  not  anticipate  it,  I  con- 
fess; nevertheless,  I  believe  the  supreme  court  of  the  state 
should  be  made  permanent  to  the  extent  I  have  indicated.  I 
do  not  undertake  to  say  that  it  should  be  beyond  the  reach  of 
the  people,  and  this  proposed  measure  does  not  place  it  beyond 
the  reach  of  the  people,  because  every  time  the  people  desire  a 
Constitutional  Convention  the  question  can  again  arise.  It 
seems  to  me  that  the  arguments  of  those  who  have  placed 
their  reasoning  upon  the  fact  that  there  has  been  many 


666    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

changes  within  the  last  fifty  years  is  an  argument. in  support 
of  the  committee's  report.  I  hope,  with  reference  to  the 
supreme  court,  the  proposition  of  the  committee  will  prevail. 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord — It  has  been  suggested  that  the  peo- 
ple— the  legislature  being  the  people — should  have  the  power 
of  controlling  the  courts.  I  start  out  with  the  proposition,  of 
course,  that  the  power  and  sovereignty  of  this  state  is  the  peo- 
ple; but  the  legislature  is  not  the  people.  They  are  the  people 
exercising  legislative  functions,  and  the  courts  are  the  people 
exercising  judicial  functions.  Our  Constitution  says  as  clearly 
as  can  be,  that  the  legislature  shall  not  have  any  control  over 
the  courts,  and  that  "In  the  government  of  this  state,  the 
three  essential  powers  thereof — to  wit,  the  legislative,  execu- 
tive and  judicial — ought  toi  be  kept  as  separate  from,  and  in- 
dependent of,  each  other  as  the  nature  of  a  free  government 
will  admit  or  as  is  consistent  with  that  chain  of  connection 
that  binds  the  whole  fabric  of  the  Constitution  in  one  indis- 
soluble bond  of  unity  and  amity." 

The  legislature,  whose  laws  the  supreme  court  may  declare 
unconstitutional,  should  not  have  the  power  of  abolishing  that 
court  and  of  putting  in  a  new  one  that  will  declare  the  same 
laws  constitutional.  The  only  power  that  there  should  be  to 
abolish  the  court  and  to  make  a  new  one  is  the  people  them- 
selves, by  a  change  of  their  Constitution,  and  there  should  be 
a  permanency  of  courts,  and  the  judges  should  know  that  they 
will  retain  their  offices  when  they  are  once  appointed  unless 
they  are  turned  out  under  the  rules  of  the  Constitution. 

Let  me  read  to  you  what  some  of  the  men,  authority  upon 
constitutional  law,  have  said  about  this  power  of  the  legisla- 
ture. I  read  from  "Story  on  the  Constitution":  "Where 
there  is  not  judicial  department  to  interpret,  pronounce,  or 
execute  the  law,  to  decide  controversies,  and  to  enforce  rights, 
the  government  mu=t  either  perish  by  its  own  imbecility,  or 
the  other  departments  of  government  must  usurp  powers,  for 
the  purpose  of  commanding  obedience,  to  the  destruction  of 
liberty.  The  will  of  those  who  govern  will  become  under  such 


'WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  66T 

circumstances  absolute  and  despotic;  and  it  is  wholly  imma- 
terial whether  power  is  vested  in  a  single  tyrant  or  in  an 
assembly  of  tyrants." 

No  remark  is  better  founded  in  human  experience  than 
that  of  Montesquieu  that  "there  is  no  liberty,  if  the  judiciary 
power  be  not  separate  from  the  legislative  and  executive 
power." 

And  again  in  Hare  on  American  Constitutional  Law: 

"It  has  been  said  that  a  sovereign  cannott  by  any  act  or 
declaration  part  irrevocably  with  his  powers  or  render  them 
less  ineffectual  as  a  means  of  government.  If  this  were  true 
generally,  it  would  not  hold  good  in  this  country,  where 
power  is  distributed  among  the  United  States,  the  several 
states,  and  the  people.  Government  under  our  system  is  not 
absolute,  but  a  delegation  or  agency  created  for  certain  pur- 
poses, and  must  keep  within  the  limits  of  the  grant.  As  Mr. 
Webster  observed,  in  arguing  the  case  of  Luther  vs.  Borden: 
'The  people  may  not  limit  their  government,  they  may  and 
often  do  limit  themselves;  they  secure  themselves  against  sud- 
den changes  by  mere  majorities.  That  is  why  they  put  it 
into  the  Constitution  that  the  judges  of  the  court  should  hold 
office  during  good  behavior.  The  fifth  article  of  the  Consti- 
tution of  the  United  States  is  a  clear  pit  of  of  this/  '' 

I  will  read  again  from  Judge  Story:  "The  judiciary  must 
be  so  organized  as  to  carry  into  complete  effect  all  the  pur- 
poses of  its  establishment.  It  must  possess  wisdom,  learning, 
integrity,  independence,  and  firmness.  It  must  at  once  possess 
the  power  and  the  means  to  check  usurpation,  and  enforce 
execution  of  its  judgments.  Mr.  Burke,  with  singular  sagacity 
and  pregnant  brevity,  stated  the  doctrine  which  every  repub- 
lic should  steadily  sustain  and  comscientiously  inculcate. 
'Whatever/  says  he,  'is  supreme  in  a -state  ought  to  have,  as 
much  as  possible,  its  judicial  authority  so  constituted  as  not 
only  not  to  depend  on  it,  but  in  some  sort  to  balance  it.  It 
ought  to  give  security  to  its  justice  against  its  power.  It 
ought  to  make  its  judicature,  as  it  were,  something  exterior  to 
the  state/  The  best  manner  in  which  this  is  to  be  accom- 


668    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

plished  must  mainly  depend  upon  the  mode  of  appointment; 
the  tenure  of  office,  the  compensation  of  the  judges,  and  the 
jurisdiction  confided  to  the  department  in  its  various 
branches." 

This  proposition  is  not  a  proposition  to  establish  the  pres- 
ent system  as  being  the  best  system.  Two  years  ago  I  was  one 
of  those  who  fought  it,  but  when  the  fight  was  over  those 
most  prominent  in  the  fight  got  together  and  agreed  that  they 
would  dot  everything  in  their  power  to  keep  the  court  as  it  is. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — I  am  glad  to  know  that  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Niles,  and  his  associates  who 
opposed  the  present  system  two  years  ago  took  it  upon  them- 
selves to  get  together  and  pledge  themselves  to>  maintain  the 
present  system.  But,  Mr.  Chairman,  this  present  system  hag 
only  been  in  vogue  a  little  over  a  year  and  a  half,  and  it  seems 
•even  though  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  favor  perpetuat- 
ing the  courts  and  placing  them  beyond  the  reach  of  the 
legislature,  it  is  a  step  which  we  cannot  afford  to  take  at  this 
time,  while  we  iare  going  through  an  experimental  stage. 
Let  us  wait.  Let  us  see  the  result  of  the  workings  of  the 
present  system. 

The  gentleman  from  Berlin,  Mr.  Daley,  says  he  is  not  par- 
ticular about:  the  superior  court,  but  he  wants  the  supreme 
court  perpetuated.  Why  the  supreme  court  more  than  the 
superior? 

I  believe  we  should  continue  just  as  we  are.  We  have  not 
had  enough  experience  under  our  present  system.  Two  years 
ago  when  the  dual  court  bill  was  under  consideration,  w© 
were  told  that  the  system  was  wrong, — that  it  was  wrong  in 
theory,  and  that  in  practice  it  would  prove  a  failure.  I  was 
one  of  those  who  advocated  the  dual  system.  I  may  have 
been  wrong.  I  wanted  to  have  the  system  tried.  I  want  to 
have  it  have  a  fair  trial  now,  and  then  if  it  is  found  that  a 
change  should  be  made  to  improve  it  we  can  change  it,  and 
if  it  is  not  what  we  want  we  can  wipe  it  out  and  institute  in 
place  thereof  a  system  that  will  best  subserve  the  interests 
of  our  state. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  669 

When  this  last  change  was  made,  the  executive  of  this 
state,  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  council,  appointed 
the  judges  of  the  new  court.  Did  he  depart  from  the  spirit 
of  this  debate?  Every  member  of  the  old  court  was  recog- 
nized and  appointed  on  either  one  or  the  other  of  the  two 
new  courts.  We  can  trust  the  legislature  of  New  Hampshire, 
we  can  trust  the  executive  of  New  Hampshire,  and  we  can 
trust  his  advisory  council,  and  I  sincerely  hope,  gentlemen, 
that  we  will  not  vote  the  present  judicial  system  beyond  the 
reach  of  the  people's  servants,  the  legislators. 

,  Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — I  am  opposed  to  this  amend- 
ment suggested  by  the  committee.  It  is  well  known  to  every 
one,  who  has  investigated  this  subject,  that  our  courts  are 
clothed  with  great  power  and  authority.  Our  judges  are  ap- 
pointed, under  our  Constitution  as  it  exists  to-day,  practically 
for  life,  or  during  good  behavior,  to  act  until  they  are  seventy 
years  of  age.  The  only  way  their  office  has  ever  been  in 
jeopardy  in  the  past  has  been  by  a  change  of  political  parties. 
After  the  change  of  the  court  in  1876,  as  I  understand  it,  by 
an  unwritten  law,  or  agreement,  entered  into  by  both  political 
parties,  the  most  eminent  attorneys  were  selected  from  each 
of  our  great  political  parties  for  the  judges  of  our  highest 
courts.  That  agreement  has  been  strictly  adhered  to  from 
that  time  to  the  present.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  change 
in  our  state  government  on  account  of  politics  will  in  any 
way  affect  the  stability  of  our  courts.  Neither  part)'',  for  po- 
litical reasons,  will  attempt  to  abolish  one  court  and  establish 
another,  because  there  is  now  no  occasion  for  it. 

We  are  told  that  it  is  necessary  to  have  the  judges  put 
beyond  the  control  of  the  people,  because  the  courts  want  to 
be  independent.  Has  it  been  suggested  that  anything  has 
ever  been  done  in  this  state  to  destroy  that  independence  of 
our  courts?  Has  anything  ever  been  done  to  cause  the  court, 
or  any  one  else,  to  fear  for  its  independence?  I  submit 
nothing  of  that  kind  has  ever  been  thought  of.  The  courts 
of  this  state  are  independent.  They  declare  the  law  fear- 


670    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

lessly,  as  they  believe  it  to  be,  and  the  people,  as.  a  rule,  have 
always  been  satisfied  with  their  decisions,  and  there  has  been 
no  attempt  on  the  part  of  anybody  to  hamper  our  courts,  or 
destroy  the  independence  of  our -judges. 

In  many  of  our  states — in  fact,  nearly  all  of  them — judges 
are  appointed  for  a  term  of  five  or  seven  years,  and,  at  the  ex- 
piration of  their  terms  of  office,  they  are  reappainted,  if  they 
have  given  general  satisfaction.  In  the  state  of  Maine,  where 
I  have  practised  considerably,  and  am  familiar  with  their 
courts,  the  judges  are  appointed  for  seven  years,  and  judges  of 
Maine  have  nearly  always  been  reappointed,  whenever  they 
desire  to  continue  upon  the  bench.  In  only  two  instances,  to 
my  knowledge,  has  any  judge  of  the  supreme  judicial  court  of 
Maine  failed  to  obtain  a  reappointment.  In  Vermont,  I  am 
told,  the  appointment  is  biennial,  and  several  of  the  Vermont 
judges  have  served  upon  the  bench  more  than  a  quarter  of  a 
century.  I  believe  our  courts  are  placed  by  our  Constitution 
in  as  independent  a  position  as  it  is  possible  to  place  them, 
consistent  with  the  rights  of  the  people,  and  I  do  not  believe 
we  can  afford  to  make  any  change. 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord  moved  that  the  report  be  recom- 
mitted to  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department,  with 
instructions  to  report  the  resolutions  in  a  new  draft  which 
shall  secure  the  tenure  of  office  of  the  judges  of  the  highest 
court  of  the  state,  without  affecting  the  power  of  the  legisla- 
ture to  modify  from  time  to  time  the  judicial  system. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Woodbury  of  Bedford,  the  motion  was 
laid  upon  the  table. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  recommendation  of 
the  committ.ee  that  the  resolution  relative  to  the  supreme 
•and  superior  courts  ' ought  to  be  adopted/  prevail?"  the  reso- 
lution was  rejected. 

The  special  order  assigned  for  2:30  o'clock,  the  proposed 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  671 

amendment  of  Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester,  to  elect  secretary 
of  state,  state  treasurer,  commissary-general,  and  railroad 
•commissioners  by  the  people,  together  with  the  report  of  the 
committee  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  act  upon  the  subject,  was 
taken,  from  the  table. 

Question:  On  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Gilmore  orf  Manchester — Mr.  President  and  Gentle- 
men: I  have  no  desire  to  make  a  speech.  I  simply  call  the 
attention  of  the  Convention  to  this  matter  for  the  reason 
that  I  believe  every  officer,  of  whatever  nature,  who  holds 
office  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  should  be  elected  by 
the  people,  and  not  by  the  legislature,  or  appointed  by  the 
governor  and  council.  Then,  if  the  people  make  a  mistake 
they  have  nobody  to  blame  but  themselves. 

I  do  not  complain  that  we  have  any  unfaithful  officers  in 
-our  secretary  of  state,  state  treasurer,  commissary-general, 
but  I  do  believe  that  there  can  be  an  improvement  made  in 
the  board  of  railroad  commissioners.  They  should  be  elected 
by  the  people,  and  responsible  to  them,  and  if  they  are  tools 
of  the  railroad,,  cir  of  any  party,  or  set  of  individuals,  they  can 
be  removed  by  the  people.  As  I  have  said  before,  I  believe  I 
have  covered  the  ground  and  have  nothing  more  to  say. 


missary-general,"  are  in  this  amendment? 
The  President — They  are. 

Mr.  Chase  of  Bristol — As  I  understood  this  morning,  those 
words  were  to  be  stricken  out  of  the  Constitution. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester — I  am  willing  that  they  should 
be  eliminated,  and  move  to  have  them  stricken  out. 

The  President — The  gentleman  from  Manchester,  Mr.  Gil- 


672     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

more,  moves  to  amend  by  striking  out  the  words  "commis- 
sary-general." 

The  motion  prevailed  on  a  viva  voce  vote. 

Mr.  S.  W.  Emery  of  Portsmouth — I  hope  that  the  report 
of  the  committee  that,  "It  is  inexpedient  to  amend,"  will  be 
adopted.  I  am  opposed  to  the  policy  of  electing  the  boartf  of 
railroad  commissioners  by  the  people.  It  seems  to  me  that 
the  members  of  the  board  of  railroad  commissioners  occupy 
judicial  offices,  and  that  the  members  thereof  are  as  much 
judges  in  many  matters  as  are  the  judges  of  our  supreme  and 
superior  courts,  and  they  ought  not  to  be  mads  a  subject  of 
pulling  and  hauling  in  a  political  convention  or  in  a  political 
campaign. 

I  suppose,  in  behalf  of  the  electric  railway  interests  in  this 
state,  I  have  had  as  much  to  do  with  the  board  of  railroad 
commissioners  as  perhaps  any  man  in  the  state  within  the 
last  three  years,  and  I  can  give  my  testimony  unhesitatingly 
that  I  never  had  to  do  business  with  a  mo<re  impartial,  able, 
and  honest  tribunal  than  that  of  the  railroad  commissioners 
of  this  state,  and  I  have  been  turned  down  a  few  times,  too. 
If  there  is  anything  gained  in  the  appointment  of  the  judges 
as  they  are  appointed,  by  the  governor  and  council;  if  there 
is  anything  gained  in  the  securing  of  able  men  and  incor- 
ruptible men  in  that  way,  the  same  thing  applies  to  the 
board  of  railroad  commissioners.  That  board  has  before  it 
questions  as  to  what  amounts  of  stocks  and  bonds  shall  be 
issued  by  railroad  corporations  of  this  state,  the  questions  of 
increases  of  bonds  and  of  stocks  of  railroads,  and  the  deter- 
mination of  the  public  good  as  to  the  construction  of  more 
railroads,  and  the  last  has  always  been  considered  an  im- 
portant matter  in  this  state.  The  determination  of  damages 
for  taking  lands,  also,  in  many  cases,  comes  before  the  board, 
and,  in  short,  it  is  a  board  of  judges,  and  ought  to  be  as  inde- 
pendent as  you  can  make  it,  and  the  members  of  that  board 
ought,  to  have  a  tenure  of  office,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  equal  to 
that  of  the  judges  of  this  state,  and  they  ought  to  be  re- 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  673 

moved  as  far  from  the  manipulation  of  political  conventions 
and  campaigns  as  may  be. 

I  am  glad  to  say  I  can  testify  to  the  absolute  impartiality, 
and  great  ability,  and  absolute  honesty  of  that,  board,  and  I 
hiope,  gentlemen,  that  its  members,  as  able  as  they  are,  as 
experienced  as  they  are,  and  as  extremely  useful  to  the  state 
as  they  are,  will  be  left  to  be  chosen  as  they  are  now  by  the 
governor  and  council.  You  can  trust  the  governor  and  coun- 
cil to  appoint  the  judges;  you  can  trust  the  governor  and 
council  to  appoint  these  men,  and  I  hope  that  the  report  of 
the  committee  will  be  sustained,  and  the  board  will  be  left 
to  be  appointed  as  it  is  appointed  at  the  present  time. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester,  the  resolution 
was  still  further  amended  by  striking  out  the  words,  "secre- 
tary of  state"  and  "state  treasurer." 

The  question  being  stated,  Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester 
called  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  nine  other  members  concurring; 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative: 

KOCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Flanders  of  Brentwood,  Kelsey  of 
Deerfield,  Fuller,  Wetherell,  Hooke,  Chase  of  Kingston,  Bat- 
tles, Gate,  Kelsey  of  Nottingham,  Emery  S.  W.,  Howard,  Nor- 
ris,  Wingate,  Clark  of  Windham. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY.  Locke  of  Barrington,  Nealley,  Fol- 
som,  Nute  of  Dover,  Nutter  of  Farmington,  Moore,  Chamber- 
lain, Springfield,  Edgerly,  Leary. 

'  BELKNAP  COUNTY.     Jewett,  Thompson  of  Laconia,  Smith 
of  Xew  Hampton,  Fellows. 

CARROLL  COUNTY.  Eideout,  Colman,  Spencer,  Hobson, 
Gibson,  Harmon,  Murch,  Sanborn  of  Wakefield. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY.  Foote,  Virgin,  Mitchell  of  Con- 
cord, Foster,  Kimball,  Walker  of  Concord,  Lamprey  of  Con- 
cord, Whititier,  Ingalls,  Ford  of  Danbury,  Caldwell,  Dolbeer, 
Leach,  Towne,  Head,  Todd. 

43 


674  JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Kimball  of  Bennington,  Bacon, 
Lambert,  Wilkinson,  Abbott  of  Manchester,  Cross,  Little, 
Rose,  Jones,  Eobinson,  Tremblay,  Farrington,  Harvey,  Pre- 
court,  McAllister,  Quirin  Joseph,  Allen,  Powers  of  Manches- 
ter, Greager,  Provost,  Quirin  Eugene,  Hamblett,  Spring, 
Clough  of  Nashua,  Harriman,  Flood,  Parker  of  Nashua, 
Woodbury  of  Nashua,  Proctor,  Runnells,  McKay,  Shedd, 
Flather,  Scott,  Richardson,  Chapman. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Learned,  Poole,  Annett,  Wright, 
Foskett,  Hall  of  Keene,  Newell,  Woodward,  Osgood,  Cass, 
Emory,  Buckminster,  Spaulding,  Kiniry,  Goodnow. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY.  Brooks,  Tenney,  Rossiter,  Colby, 
Burpee,  Barton,  Bartlett. 

GRAFTON  COUNTY.  Bucklin,  Parker  of  Benton,  Morrill  of 
Bridgewater,  Chase  of  Bristol,  Pulsifer  of  Campton,  Richard- 
son of  Canaan,  Cumings,  Parker  of  Franconia,  Ward,  West- 
gate,  Sloane,  Jewell  of  Hebron,  Flanders,  Glazier,  Dewey, 
Hibbard,  Woolson,  Morris,  Aldrich  of  Littleton,  Green  of  Lit- 
tleton, Morse,  Melvin,  Warden,  Lamprey  of  Orford,  Green  of 
Waterville-,  Shute. 

Coos  COUNTY.  Wight  of  Berlin,  Moffett,  Rich,  Daley, 
Boudreau,  Murray,  Titus,  Wight  of  Dummer,  Evans,  Kent, 
Blanchard,  Philbrook,  Aldrich  of  Whitefield,  Dodge  of  White- 
field. 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative : 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Conley,  Sanborn  of  Auburn, 
Eaton,  Kimball  of  Danville,  Abbott  of  Derry,  Sanborn  of 
Hampstead,  Shaw,  de  Rochemont,  Ham,  Sawyer  of  Rye,  Cole, 
Jewell  of  South  Hampton. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY.  Roberts,  Webb,  Nute  of  Rochester, 
Cochrane. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY.  Codbath,  Clark  of  Center  Harbor, 
Merrill  of  Gilford,  Smith  of  Meredith,  Rogers. 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  675 

CARROLL  COUNTY.  Nickerson,  Merrill  of  Conway,  Dear- 
born of  Eaton,  Merrow,  Meserve,  Gilman,  Goodwin,  Dorr. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY.  Blodgett  of  Allenstown,  Buxton, 
Baker,  Frame,  Dudley  of  Concord,  Hollis,  Niles,  Howe, 
Chandler,  Casey,  Jordan,  Wilson  of  Hill,  Putnam,  Messer. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Hubbard,  Woodbury  of  Bed- 
ford, Fessenden,  Whitaker  of  Deering,  Colby,  Paige  of  Goffs- 
liown,  Marsh,  Tarbell,  Briggs,  Green  of  Manchester,  Dodge  of 
Manchester,  Lord,  Gilmore,  Hill,  Starr,  Horan,  Glancy,  Sulli- 
van, Griffin,  Jennings,  Irwin,  Clement  of  Manchester,  Little- 
field,  McElroy,  Boivin,  Hall  of  Manchester,  Trinity,  Gordon, 
Knight,  Kotch,  Raymond,  Ledoux,  Wason,  Earley,  Desmarais, 
Blanchard,  Seavey,  Simons. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Cooke,  Amidon,  Blake,  Farwell, 
Buckley,  Madden,  Craig  of  Marlow,  McClure,  Clement  of 
Surry,  Day,  Davis. 

SULLIVAN     COUNTY.     Holmes,     Penniman,     Brown     of 

Springfield. 

GRAFTON  COUNTY.  Carbee,  Ashley,  Young  of  Easton, 
Avery,  Dresser,  Kidder,  Drake,  French  of  Orange,  Ford  of 
Piermont,  Russell,  Wentworth,  Craig  of  Rumney. 

Coos  COUNTY.  Paine,  Perkins,  McKellips,  Pike  of  Stark, 
Hinman. 

And  151  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  112 
gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  negative,  the  resolution  of  the 
committee,  "inexpedient  to  act  upon  the  subject,"  prevailed. 

The  President — There  is  certain  unfinished  business,  first, 
the  proposed  amendment  extending  the  jurisdiction  of  police 
courts. 

Mr.  Morris  of  Lisbon — When  the  Convention  adjourned 
Friday  I  had  nearly  finished  my  explanation  of  the  purposes 
of  the  bill. 


676     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

There  seems  to  be  some  misunderstanding  about  the  scope 
of  the  bill.  In  the  first  place,  I  desire  to  say  that  this  bill 
simply  authorizes  the  legislature  to  make  some  change.  It 
does  not,  of  itself,  make  these  changes. 

Again,  I  wish  to  say  to  the  members  of  the  Convention  that 
this  bill  does  not  dimmish  or  increase  the  jurisdiction  in  civil 
cases  of  the  police  courts,  and  it  does  not  increase  or  give  the 
legislature  any  power  to  increase  that  jurisdiction.  It  simply 
gives  power  to  the  legislature  to  do  what  it  has  already  tried 
to  do  on  two  different  occasions,  that  is,  to  extend  the  juris- 
diction of  the  police  court  with  reference  to  criminal  matters. 
We  have  acted  under  such  a  law  for  nearly  thirty  years.  That 
law  was  found  to  be  unconstitutional.  I  believe  in  amending 
the  Constitution  so  we  can  at  least:  reenaet  that  law,  and  I 
think  it  is  safe  to  leave  it  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  legislature 
as  to  how  far  the  police  court  will  be  given  jurisdiction. 

It  may  be  said  that  this  is  taking  away  some  of  the  rights  of 
the  respondent  in  a  criminal  case.  I  do  not  see  how  that  can 
be  said.  I  have  had  some  experience  in  criminal  matters  in 
the  last  four  years,  being  solicitor  of  one  of  the  counties  of 
this  state,  and  I  know  great  expense  has  been  incurred  by  rea- 
son of  the  limited  jurisdiction  of  the  police  courts.  I  will 
draw  one  illustration.  We  will  suppose  in  the  county  of  Graf- 
ton,  in  the  town  of  Bethlehem,  a  man  is  charged  with  larceny 
of  $15.  That  is  beyond  the  power  of  the  police  court  to  de- 
termine, and  all  the  police  court  can  do  is  to  bind  the  party 
over,  if  probable  cause  exists,  to  the  grand  jury  of  tlaat 
county.  If  this  crime  happens  to_  have  been  committed  in 
October,  the  respondent  must  be  bound  over  to  the  November 
term  of  the  superior  court  holden  at  Lebanon.  That  is  about 
seventy-three  miles  from  Bethlehem,  and  so  the  county  is  put 
to  the  expense  of  transporting  the  respondent,  if  he  has  not 
furnished  the  required  bonds,  and  the  witnesses,  from  Bethle- 
hem to  Lebanon,  when  in  many  cases  if  the  jurisdiction  of  the 
police  court  were  extended  it  could  be  avoided.  It  may  be 
the  respondent  pleaded  guilty  before  a  justice  of  the  police 
court  in  the  town  of  Bethlehem.  But  notwithstanding  that 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  677 

fact,  the  county,  to  make  out  a  case  before  the  grand  jury, 
must  take  witnesses  to-  Lebanon  in  order  to  find  an  indict- 
ment, and  is  put  to  an  expense  of  $75.  The  respondent  may 
be  fined  $25,  and  ordered  to  pay  costs  taxed  at  $75,  which 
under  amended  legislation  would  be  saved  to  him  or  the 
county. 

Now  as  to  the  rights  of  the  respondent, — as  I  have  said,  I 
eannot  see  that  he  loses  any  of  his  rights.  Yoai  all  know  that 
in  the  proceedings  before  a  grand  jury  the  respondent  cannot 
be  represented  either  by  himself  or  by  counsel,  and  therefore 
he  cannot  gain  anything  by  having  tiie  matter  brought  before 
that  body.  All  of  his  rights  may  be  protected  by  appeal  under 
this  proposed  amendment  toi  the  petit  jury  in  the  superior 
court.  I  do  not  believe  it  takes  from  the  rights  of  the  re- 
spondent at  all,  but  it  will  tend  to  decrease  to  a  material  ex- 
tent the  expense  to  the  counties. 

What  is  true  in  Grafton  county  must  be  true  in  every  one 
of  the  counties  to  a  greater  or  less  extent.  Perhaps  you  do 
not  have  as  long  distances  to  travel  as  we  do  up  there,  yet 
there  will  be  a  saving  in  expense  to  the  counties  if  the  juris- 
diction of  police  courts  is  extended. 

I  hope  the  resolution  of  the  committee  will  be  adopted. 

The  resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Morris  of  Lisbon,  extending 
the  jurisdiction  of  police  courts,  reported  Friday,  December 
12,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department  in 
new  draft,  was  then  adopted  by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  when  the  Convention  adjourn  this  after- 
noon, it  adj'ourn  to  meet  at  7:30  o'clock  this  evening/' 

Adopted> 

The  resolution  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  in  amendment  of  arti- 
cles thirty-two,  thirty-three,  forty-one,  and  sixty,  part  second 
of  the  Constitution,  providing  for  the  substitution  of  the. 


678    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

word  "plurality"  for  "majority,"  in  said  articles,  reported 
from  the  committee  Tuesday,  December  16,  in  amended  form, 
with  the  recommendation  that  the  same  be  adopted,  was 
taken  up  by  the  Convention. 

Question,  upon  the  adoption  of  the  recommendation  of  the 
committee  that  the  resolution,  as  amended,  ought  to  pass. 

Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia  moved  that  the  whole  matter  be  in- 
definitely postponed.  The  affirmative  prevailed  on  a  viva, 
voce  vote.  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  called  for  a  division,  which  re- 
sulted in  141  gentlemen  vesting  in  the  affirmative,  and  89  gen- 
tlemen voting  in  the  negative,  and  the  motion  to  indefinitely 
postpone  prevailed. 

The  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Depart- 
ment, by  unanimous  consent,  submitted  the  following  report: 

The  Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Depart- 
ment, having  considered  the  resolutions  presented  by  Mr. 
Chandler  of  Concord,  the  resolution  presented  by  Mr.  Starr 
of  Manchester,  and  the  resolution  presented  by  Mr.  Ledoux  of 
Nashua,  proposing  amendments  to  article  eighty-two  of  the 
Constitution,  and  all  other  matters  relating  to  the  subject 
brought  to  the  attention  of  the  committee,  report  as  follows: 

That  article  eightj^-two  of  the  Constitution  be  amended  by 
adding  the  following: 

"Free  and  fair  competition  in  the  trades  and,  industries  is 
an  inherent  and  essential  right  of  the  people  and  should  be 
protected  against  all  monopolies  and  conspiracies  which  tend 
to  hinder  or  destroy  it.  The  size  and  functions  of  all  corpora- 
tions should  be  so  limited  and  regulated  as  to  prohibit  ficti- 
tious capitalization  and  provision  should  be  made  for  the 
supervision  and  government  thereof. 

"Therefore,  All  just  power  possessed  by  the  state  is  hereby 
granted  to  the  general  court  to  enact  laws  to  prevent  the 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  679 

6perations  within  the  state  of  all  persons  and  associations,  and 
all  trusts  and  corporations,  foreign  or  domestic,  and  the  offi- 
cers thereof,  who  endeavor  to  raise  the  price  of  any  article  of 
commerce  or  to  destroy  free  and  fair  competition  in  the  trades 
and  industries  through  combination,  conspiracy,  monopoly,  or 
any  other  unfair  means;  to  control  and  regulate  the  acts  of 
all  such  persons,  associations,  corporations,  trusts,  and  officials 
thereof  doing  business  within  the  state;  to  prevent  fictitious 
capitalization;  and  to  authorize  civil  and  criminal  proceedings 
in  respect  to  all  the  wrongs  herein  declared  against." 

And  the  committee  reports  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  foregoing  amendment  reported  by  the 
committee  be  adopted." 

EDGAR  ALDRICH, 

J.  F.  BRIGGS, 

EDWARD  B.  S.  SANBORN, 

For  the  Committee. 

The  President — Unless  otherwise  ordered  this  report  will 
be  accepted,  and  the  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  by  the  committee. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — This  is  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant matters  that  this  Convention  will  have  occasion  to 
pass  upon.  The  last  division  shows  that  there  are  only  230 
members  present,  and  I  move  you  that  this  matter  lie  on  the 
table  and  be  made  a  special  order  for  11  o'clock  to-morrow. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — I  ask  the  privilege  of  a  question 
before  this  motion  is  put.  I  desire  to  ask  the  gentleman  from 
Nashua  and  those  opposed  to  this  resolution  to  tell  us  if  they 
have  any  desire  for  any  further  debate  upon  the  matter. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — I  do  not  know  that  we  want  any 
further  debate,  but  it  seems  to  me'  that  when  there  are  so  few 
members  present  this  matter  ought  to  be  postponed  until  a 
time  when  they  are  all  present  and  can  have  the  opportunity 
of  voting  upon  the  question. 


680     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia — It  seems  to  me  this  matter  may  as 
well  be  disposed  oif  now  as  at  any  time.  We  yesterday  had  a 
roll-call  upon  the  question  upon  which  every  one  in  a  house 
with  most  of  the  seats  occupied  voted,  which  would  indicate 
that  most  of  the  members  of  the  Convention  knew  practically 
what  was  going  to  be  reported  in  this  resolution.  That  being 
the  case  it  hardly  seems  to  me  we  ought  to  take  the  time  when 
the  committee  has  prepared  a  resolution  under  the  authority 
given  by  the  vote  yesterday,  which  apparently  meets  the  view 
of  everybody — under  the  circumstances  it  seems  to  me  that 
we  ought  not  to  take  the  time  necessary  in  postponing  this 
matter,  but  it  should  be  disposed  of  now. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — I  hope  the  members  will  under- 
stand that  this  resolution  was  introduced  by  unanimous  con- 
sent. Nearly  200  members  of  this  Convention  are  absent,  and 
have  no  notice  that  the  resolution  wag  to  be  introduced  this 
afternoon,  and  it  seems  to  me  fair  when  unanimous  consent 
was  given  the  introduction  of  the  report  that  the  matter  be 
postponed  until  a  larger  attendance  can  be  present  when  it  is 
acted  upon. 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene — I  will  state  that  I  have  talked  with 
a  great  many  members  of  this  Convention  in  regard  to  this 
resolution,  and  the  majority  of  those  with  whom  I  have  talked 
are  of  the  opinion  that  this  action  is  entirely  futile  and  of  no 
use  whatever.  I  am  of  that  opinion  myself.  There  is  almost 
less  than  a  quorum  here,  and  I  think  it  is  unfair  at  this  time 
to  have  the  matter  considered.  I  think  if  the  Convention 
should  have  time  to  consider  it  a  little  more  in  the  absence  of 
the  hypnotism  produced  by  the  speech  of  the  gentleman  from 
Littleton,  that  the  action  of  the  Convention  would  be  some- 
what different. 

I  am  against  this  proposition.  I  am  looking  forward  with 
pleasure  to  the  time  when  these  great  corporations  and  the 
trusts  will  be  under  public  control,  and  even  when  the  neces- 
sities of  life  will  be  produced  by  the  municipalities  and  not  by 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  681 

private  enterprise,  and  I  wish  this  whole  matter  to  be  delayed 
until  that  time,  and  do  not  desire  to  have  action  taken  now. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andcxver — I  do  not  know  as  this  Convention 
can  settle  anything,  but  it  seems  to  me  if  there  is  any  subject 
that  is  ripe  for  final  disposition,  it  is  this  one,  and  this  is  the 
time  when  the  vote  should  be  taken.  When  the  vote  was 
taken  upon  the  roll-call  the  other  day  a  full  convention  was 
present,  and  only  two  members  voted  against  the  measure.  I 
W'Oruld  like  to  know  for  what  earthly  reason  this  should  be 
postponed.  It  seems  to  me  it  can  be  disposed  of  now,  as  there 
was  practically  no  opposition  whatever  to  the  resolution  in  its 
original  form. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — My  impression  has  been  while 
debate  was  going  on  that  it  would  be  no  more  than  fair  to  let 
this  subject  go  over  until  12  o'clock  to-morrow.  It  is  true 
that  what  the  committee  has  done  has  been  substantially  to 
put  in  an  improved  form  the  declaration  of  the  Convention. 
But  this  is  an!  important  subject,  and  if  any  gentleman  here 
wishes  to  look  at  the  language  of  the  resolution  and  see 
whether  they  want  to  criticise  it  or  even  object,  to  the  princi- 
ples of  it,  I  think  it  is  no  more  than  fair  that  they  should  have 
the  opportunity.  I  ask  unanimous  consent  that  the  disposi- 
tion of  this  report  may  go  over  until  12  o'clock  to-morrow. 

The  President — No<  objection  being  made,  the  secretary 
will  enter  that  by  unanimous  consent  the  matter  is  postponed 
until  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock. 

'Mr.  Parker  of  Nashua,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial 
Department,  submitted  the  following  report: 

The  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department,  to  whom  was 
referred  the  amendment  offered  by  Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester 
for  amending  article  five,  part  two  of  the  Constitution,  so  that 
article  five  as  amended  shall  authorize  and  direct  the  general 
court,  "to  enact  statutes  which  shall  prevent  the  giving  or 


682    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

issuing  of  railroad  passes,  except  to  actual  railroad  officials  or 
employes,  OT  poor  persons  in  misfortune,"  having  considered 
the  same,  report  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  act  upon  the  same. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  was  not  aware  that  this  resolu- 
tion had  gone  to  the  committee.  That  is  one  of  the  facts  in 
connection  with  the  Convention  that  I  had  overlooked.  If  I 
had  known  that  the  proposition  was  before  the  committee  I 
should  have  appeared  before  them  and  asked  them  not  to 
make  any  report  on  this  subject  other  than  to  lay  upon  the 
table,  because  there  are  other  propositions  on  this  subject 
which  it  was  my  intention  to  move  to  take  from  the  table  and 
have  considered  seasonably  before  the  members  of  the  Con- 
vention should  go  to  the  various  parts  of  the  state,  over  the 
railroads  of  the  state,  for  the  last  time. 

I  move  that  this  resolution  may  be  laid  upon  the  table,  and 
I  shall  move  to  take  it  up  in  connection  with  the  other  propo- 
sitions on  the  same  subject  which  now  lie  upon  the  table, 
when  more  important  business  which  is  nearer  the  hearts  erf 
the  members  of  this  Convention  has  been  disposed  of. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  was  stated  by  the  chair,  and 
declared  carried  on  a  viva  voce  vote. 

Mr.  Truesdell  of  Pembroke,  for  the  Committee  on  the  Leg- 
islative Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution  of 
Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  to  amend  article  five,  part  second  of  the 
Constitution,  by  adding  thereto  as  follows: 

"Nor  pass  any  local,  private,  or  special  law  where  a  general 
law  can  be  made  applicable,  and  whether  a  general  law  could 
have  been  made  applicable  in  any  case  is  hereby  declared  a 
judicial  question,  and  as  such  shall  be  judicially  determined 
without  regard  to  any  legislative  assertion  on  that  subject. 
Nor  shall  the  general  court  indirectly  enact  such  local,  pri- 
vate, or  special  law  by  the  partial  repeal  of  a  general  law;  but 
laws  repealing  local  or  special  acts  may  be  passed,"  reported 
the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 


WEDNESDAY,  DECEMBER  17,  1902.  683 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  recommend  such  an 
amendment." 

The  report  was  accepted,  and  the  question  was  upon  the 
adoption  of  the  resolution  reported  by  the  committee. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Convention:  I  will  detain  you  but  a  short  time.  I  wish 
simply  to  call  your  attention  to  the  matter  as  it  stands.  Every 
legislature  spends  a  considerable  portion  of  its  time  in  consid- 
ering private  bills,  private  corporation  bills,  although  the 
state  has  a  general  incorporation  law,  and  if  this  proposed 
amendment  of  mine  cooild  be  adopted  by  this  Convention  and 
by  the  people  I  apprehend  it  would  do  no  person  and  no  cor- 
poration any  harm  whatever,  and  would  have  a  great  effect  to 
shorten  the  length  of  the  sessions  of  the  legislature,  and 
wooild  conduce  generally  to  the  welfare  of  the  state. 

I  have  introduced  before  this  body  no  proposed  amendment 
which  I  did  not  at  the  time,  and  do  not  now,  believe  to  be  for 
the  welfare  of  the  state.  If  the  gentlemen  of  the  committee 
and  the  gentlemen  of  the  Convention  think  otherwise,  I  am 
just  exactly  as  well  satisfied,  because  I  have  arrived  at  that 
stage  of  life  where  I  shall  not  have  to  live  under  this  condi- 
tion of  things  as  long  as  the  majority  of  the  members  of  this 
Convention;  but  I  think  some  time  in  the  near  future,  when 
the  matter  shall  be  placed  squarely  before  the  people  of  the 
state,  they  will  see  to  it  that  there  is  no  longer  class  legisla- 
tion in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  but  that  all  by  general 
enactment  shall  be  treated  alike. 

The  question  being  stated,  the  resolution  of  the  committee 
was  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  the  vote  whereby 
the  Convention  voted  to  adjourn  at  the  end  of  the  afternoon 
session  to  7:30  o'clock  in  the  evening  was  reconsidered. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


684     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902: 
The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 
Prayer  was  offered  by  Rev.  Mr.  Dearborn  of  Eaton. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Johnson  of  Colebrook,  the  rules  were  so 
far  suspended  that  the  reading  of  the  journal  was  dispensed 
with. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Norris  of  Portsmouth,  the  resolution 
offered  by  that  gentleman  to  amend  article  five,  part  two  of 
the  Constitution,  in  relation  to  taxation,  was  indefinitely 
postponed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  the  resolution 
offered  by  that  gentleman  in  relation  to  taxation  was  indefi- 
nitely postponed. 

(Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster  in  the  chair.) 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  the  Convention 
voted  to  hold  an  evening  session  at  7:30  o'clock. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  various  resolutions 
on  the  table  relating  to  free  passes  on  railroads  were  taken 
from  the  table  and  referred  to  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  Convention  resolved 
itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  the  various 
resolutions  relating  to  free  passes. 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Little  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Even  if  I  were  not  limited  to 
ten  minutes,  I  should  speak  very  briefly.  The  evil  prevail- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  685 

ing  in  this  state,  which  I  have  felt  anid  now  feel  it  to  be  my 
duty  in  a  humble  way  to  combat,  is  well  known  to  the  dele- 
gates to  this  Convention.  There  is  not  a  delegate  here  who 
does  not  know  what  the  free  pass  system  is,  and  does  not 
know  that  it  is  wrong  as  iti  exists  to-day.  It  is  an  evil,  Mr. 
Chairman  and  gentlemen,  which  the  people  of  this  country 
have  not  been  able  to  combat  through  the  legislatures  of 
the  states  by  ordinary  legislation,  and  therefore  nine  states 
of  this  Union  have  felt  compelled  to  put  in  their  Constitutions 
the  prohibition  of  free  transportation  on  their  railroads.  They 
have  found  it  necessary  to  do  this  because  of  the  violation  of 
the  principle  of  equality  of  right  in  connection  with  the 
railroads. 

The  railroads  are  great  public  highways  which  have  been 
created  through  granting  to  the  railroad  corporations  the 
use  of  the  right  of  eminent  domain — the  right  to  take  land 
without  the  consent  of  the  owner  upon  making  compensation 
therefor.  That  great  privilege  of  the  state  has  been  con- 
ferred upon  the  railroads  of  the  state,  and  when  it  was  thus 
conferred  they  became  public  corporations  and  have  been 
held  to  be  such  from  the  earliest  history  of  railroads  in  New 
Hampshire. 

There  goes  along  with  that  assertion,  Mr.  Chairman  and 
gentlemen,  the  proposition  that  all  men  stand  equal  before 
the  law  in  the  enjoyment  of  the  privileges  which  these  rail- 
roads offer,  and  they  are  bound  to  make  uniform  and  equal 
tariffs  for  the  whole  public,  they  are  bound  to  collect  for 
fares  and  freights  the  same  sums  for  the  same  service  from 
every  patron  of  the  road,  and  when  they  grant  anybody, 
except  their  employes,  the  right  to  travel  free,  or  for  less 
sum  than  others  pay,  they  violate  this  great  principle.  Nev- 
ertheless, the  wrong  system  has  gone  forward  until  it  has 
become  so  universal  that  nine  states  in  the  Union  have  had 
to  grapple  with  it  by  means  of  amendment  to  their  Constitu- 
tions; and  now  the  proposition  comes  before  this  Convention, 
and  it  is  to  be  decided  by  this  Convention  whether  the 
evil  in  New  Hampshire  is  one  that  shall  be  dealt  with  and 
prohibited. 


686     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Chairman,  this  state  once  prohibited  free  transporta- 
tion. The  laws  of  1878  thus  declare: 

"No  person  shall  be  allowed  to  -pass  over  any  railroad  with- 
out paying  the  fare  thus  established,  except  stockholders 
going  or  returning  from  the  meetings  of  the  proprietors;  the 
directors,  superintendent,  treasurer,  and  clerk  of  said  pro- 
prietors, and  of  roads  having  a  business  connection  from 
freight  and  passengers  on  said  road;  persons  in  charge  of 
mails  and  expresses;  and  persons  poor  an.d  in  misfortune, 
who,  are  unable  to  pay  said  fare,  and  to  whom  passes  have 
been  granted." 

That  law  was  not  properly  obeyed,  and  in  the  legislature 
of  1881.  I  endeavored  to  secure  a  reenforcement  and  more 
strict  observance  of  the  law,  and  when  there  was  pending  a 
bill  which  not  only  made  it  a  crime  for  the  railroad  officials 
to  give  a  free  pass,  but  also  made  it  a  crime  for  any  person  to 
receive  a  free  pass,  Mr.  Beckford,  then  of  Bristol,  stood  up 
and  said  that  the  bill  was  to-  take  effect  on  its  passage,  and  if 
it  did  it  would  put  him  in  a  sort  of  dilemma,  as  he  wanted 
to  go  home  and  use  his  pass,  and  he  said  he  heard  others 
around  hlim  say,  "Me  too,"  and  he  moved  the  indefinite  post- 
ponement of  the  bill.  On  the  call  of  the  yeas  and  nays, 
176  voted  for  the  indefinite  postponement  and  35  voted  no. 
A  little  later  the  same  question  was  brought  up  again,  and 
the  question  being  put  the  yeas  were  145  and  the  nays  53. 
You  will  see  that  we  increased  out  little  band  of  anti-free  pass 
members  from  thirty-five  to  fifty-three. 

But  the  provision  did  not  pass.  Indeed,  the  evil  made 
progress  in  the  other  direction,  and  on  March  25,  1897,  the 
most  extraordinary  legislation  took  place  that  I  ever  heard  of 
anywhere.  A  bill  was  introduced  reciting  the  provisions 
against  passes  just  as  I  have  read  it,  except  that  after  the 
words,  "persons  poor  and  in  misfortune,  whoi  are  unable  to 
pay  said  fare,"  the  words,  "and  others,"  had  been  added,  al- 
lowing free  passes  to  all  "others  to  whom  passes  have  been 
granted."  And  when  inquiry  was  made  in  this  very  hall,  Mr. 
Batchelder  of  Keene  said  that  this  bill  was  designed  to  make 


THUKSDAY,  DECEMBEK  18,  1902.  687 

legal  the  issuance  of  passes  to  the  members  of  the  legislature. 
On  his  motion  the  bill  was  reid  a  third  time  and  passed  under 
the  suspension  of  the  rules.  Thereafter  and  ever  since,  New 
Hampshire  has  been  the  only  state  in  the  Union  which  affirm- 
atively legalizes  free  passes  and  expressly  authorizes  the  rail- 
roads of  the  state  to  give  free  transportation  to  anybody 
whom  they  may  want  to  influence  by  the  giving  of  those 
passes. 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  the  people  of  the  state  did 
take  alarm  at  this  action;  they  did  take  alarm  when  they  saw 
these  free  passes  distributed  throughout  New  Hampshire 
without  limit,  according  to  the  interests  of  the  railroads  of 
the  state,  and  so  the  two  political  parties  ma.de  utterance  on 
this  subject  in  1898,  and  the  distinguished  attorney-general 
now  upon  the  floor  (Mr.  E.  G.  Eastman)  reported  the  follow- 
ing platform  to  the  Republican  state  convention: 

"The  Republican  party  favors,  as  it  did  in  the  legislatures 
of  1893  and  1895,  submitting  to  the  people  the  question  of 
calling  a  Constitutional  Convention  that  they  may  act  upon 
the  question  of  abolishing  free  passes  and  upon  any  changes 
in  the  organic  law  which  experience  has  shown  to  be  advisable 
to  make.  In  the  meantime,  we  favor  such  legislation  as  may 
properly  anticipate  the  adoption  of  a  constitutional  amend- 
ment prohibiting  free  passes." 

That  was  the  action  and  the  platform  of  the  Republican 
party.  In  the  Democratic  state  convention  of  August  31, 
-1898,  the  platform  was  read  by  Henry  H.  Metcalf,  Esq.,  con- 
taining the  following: 

"We  condemn  the  action  of  the  last  legislature  in  enacting 
a  law  legalizing  free  passes  and  demand  its  repeal." 

So  the  two  parties  gave  their  mandates  to  the  then  coining 
legislature,  which  the  honorable  gentleman  from  Exeter  said 
ought  to  pass  a  law  in  anticipation  of  a  constitutional  con- 
vention. We  had  the  legislature,  and  now  we  have  a  conven- 
tion. In  the  legislature,  Mr.  Batchelder  said,  "The  subject  of 
free  passes  should  be  considered  in  a  constitutional  conven- 
tion." Mr.  Remich  of  Littleton  said:  "The  matter  should  be 


JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

postponed  to  the  constitutional  convention.  In  spite  of  the 
party  declarations  in  favor  of  the  passage  by  this  legislature 
of  an  anti-free  pass  law,  within  a  week  after  the  Democratic 
state  convention  the  chairman  and  secretary  of  the  Demo- 
cratic state  committee  called  for  free  passes  and  got  them." 

Yet.,  in  behalf  of  the  Democrats  who  helped  to  elect  me  to 
this  Convention,  as  well  as  the  Eepublicans  of  my  ward  in 
Concord,  I  repel  the  charge  that  the  Democratic  party  is  any 
more  greedy  for  free  passes  than  the  Republican  party. 

Next,  Mr.  Clement,  who  led  a  little  band  of  members  op- 
posed to  free  passes,  said  that,  "When  the  Constitutional  Con- 
vention is  called,  every  member  of  that  Convention  will  get  a 
free  pass  just  as  the  members  of  the  legislature  do." 

The  Convention  has  come,  and  the  free  passes  are  issued, 
and  now  the  Convention  is  brought  face  to  face  with  this 
question. 

Except  as  a  citizen  of  New  Hampshire,  interested  in  its 
honor  and  in  the  honor  of  its  representatives  in  public  and 
in  private  life,  I  have  no  more  desire  than  yon,  Mr.  Chair- 
man, ought  to  have  that  this  Convention  shall  act  concerning 
the  great  public  evil  which  this  amendment  is  proposed  to 
remedy. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Franklin — We  have  in  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire  but  one  magnificent  railroad  system,  which  is  con- 
ducting its  business  through  all  of  the  six  New  England 
states,  and,  for  one,  I  do  not  see  any  reason  why  the  gentle- 
men of  this  Convention  should  be  asked  to  engraft  into  their 
fundamental  law  a  prohibition  that  will  restrict  that  corpora- 
tion in  the  discharge  of  its  duties  as  it  sees  fit.  There  is  not 
another  state  in  New  England  that  has  a  constitutional  pro- 
hibition against  free  passes.  Are  we  here  to  say  that  the  peo- 
ple of  New  Hampshire  are  more  susceptible  to  bribery  than 
they  are  in  the  other  five  states  where  this  corporation  trans- 
acts its  business  Only  one  state  besides  New  Hampshire, 
in  all  this  system  of  the  six  New  England  states,  has  enacted 
a  statute  against  f^e  passes,  and  that  is  the  state  of  Maine. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  689 

The  other  four  states  have  not  any  law  of  any  kind  upon  their 
statute  books  or  in  their  constitutions.  They  leave  it  to  the 
honor  and  to  the  integrity  of  their  people  and  of  the  corpora- 
tion to  settle  these  things  among  themselves. 

Now  I  hope  that  this  proposed  amendment  will  not  become 
a  part  of  our  fundamental  law.  As  the  honorable  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  has  said,  this  railroad  has  a 
franchise  giving  it  the  right  of  taking  land  by  eminent  do- 
main. That  corporation  was  granted  its  charter  by  the  legis- 
lature of  this  state,  and  is  responsible  to  the  legislature  of 
this  state  for  the  conduct  of  its  affairs.  The  legislature  of 
this  state  compels  this  corporation  to  sell  mileage  tickets  for 
so  much  a  mile — tickets  of  1,000  miles  and  500  miles — and 
they  otherwise  control  the  conduct  of  the  corporation,  and  I 
want,  gentlemen,  to  leave  this  matter  in  the  hands  of  the  leg- 
islature who  created  the  corporation,  who  have  thus  far  gov- 
erned these  affairs  between  it  and  the  people;  but  I  do  not 
want  to  put  it  into  the  fundamental  law  of  the  state. 

The  honorable  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  has 
prepared  his  circular,  in  which  he  says  that  nine  states  have 
enacted  constitutional  amendments,  but  he  dees  not  say  that 
there  are  twenty-five  states  in  this  Union  that  have  not.  He 
says  that  there  are  five  states  that  have  enacted  laws  for  the 
prevention  of  the  giving  free  passes,  but  he  does  not  tell 
you  about  the  thirty-nine  other  states  that  have  not.  Are  we 
worse  than  all  the  rest  off  the  Union  that  we  have  got  to  say 
that  our  legislators  are  bribe-takers  and  we  have  to  enact  a 
law  to  prevent  their  taking  bribes?  I  think  we  have  more 
respect  for  our  legislators  than  to  make  any  such  amendment 
to  the  Constitution  as  that.  The  legislators  come  here  and  go 
away,  and  they  do  their  duty,  and  do  it  impartially  and  not, 
as  a  class,  would  they  accept  a  bribe.  I  desire  to  leave  it  to 
the  good  sense  and  sound  judgment  and  honor  of  our  legis- 
lators, and  I  hope  that  this  resolution  will  not  pass. 

Mr.  Hubbard  of  Amherst — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Committee:  I,  for  one,  am  unalterably  opposed  to  the 

44 


690    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

issuance  of  free  passes,  and  for  one  I  have  never  disgraced 
myself  by  the  use  of  one,  although  I  have  received  them  for 
the  legislature  and  for  this  Convention.  I  believe  the  cor- 
rupting influence,  so  far  as  the  political  influence  of  these  free 
passes  is  concerned,  is  more  than  all  other  political  influences 
combined.  I  believe  if  it  were  not)  for  them  there  would  be 
twice  as  many  miles  of  electric  railroad  in  the  state  as  there 
are.  I  have  no  doubt  that  if  it  had  not  been  for  the  use  of  the 
free  passes  the  Fitchburg  railroad  would  have  been  extended 
into  Manchester  three  years  ago,  and  that  railroad  would  not 
have  been  leased  to  the  Boston  &  Maine,  and  the  city  of  Man- 
chester would  not  be  bottled  up  in  the  grip  of  one  great  cor- 
poration, but  there  would  be  two  competing  lines  and  a  trunk 
line  direct  from  the  West  into>  the  Queen  City  of  our  state. 
In  saying  this  I  cast  no  reflection  upon  the  Boston  &  Maine  as 
a  corporation.  It  is  a  magnificent  corporation,  and  has  done 
much  good  in  its  own  legitimate  lines  of  business.  In  those 
lines  it  has  been  a  godsend  to  New  Hampshire.  Need  I  say 
any  more  in  its  favor?  But  as  a  political  machine  I  believe  it 
has  majiipulated  our  politics,  corrupted  onir  legislature,  and 
defeated  the  ends  of  justice  in  many  cases,  and  I  believe  it  to 
be  an  evil  and  worthy  the  righteous  condemnation  of  a  free 
people. 

I  am  not  going  to  tlake  up  your  time  longer,  but  I  hope  this 
amendment  will  be  adopted,  and  I  hope  this  state  will  be 
freed  from  the  disgrace  resting  upon  it  for  all  these  years. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  have  no  desire  to  interrupt  the 
debate  on  this  question.,  or  to  interfere  with  an  immediate 
vote  if  it  can  be  taken..  But  the  hour  for  the  special  order, 
which  is  the  reconsideration  of  the  vote  on  woman's  suffrage, 
has  now  arrived.  I  want  to  deal  entirely  fair  with  the  gentle- 
men who  are  interested  in  this  measure,  and  for  the  purpose 
of  taking  the  sense  of  the  committee  I  move  that  the  com- 
mittee do  now  arise,  report  progress,  and  ask  leave  to  sit 
again. 

The  motion  being  stated  by  the  chairman,  prevailed. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  691 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Little,  chairman,  from  the  Committee  of  the  Wholer 
reported  that  the  committee  had  been  in  session,  having  had 
under  consideration  the  various  resolutions  relating  to  free 
passes  on  railroads,  and  had  voted  to  rise,  report  progress,  and 
ask  leave  to  sit  again. 

Leave  was  granted. 

The  special  order  was  called  for,  it  being  the  motion  of  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  to  reconsider  the  vote- 
whereby  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Thompson  of  Warner  to  amend 
article  twenty-seven,  part  two  of  the  Constitution,  by  striking 
out  the  word  "male"  passed  the  Convention. 

The  following  communication  from  the  Hon.  Henry  W. 
Blair  was  read: 

MANCHESTER,  K  H.,  December  6,  1902. 

To  President  Streeter  of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  in 
session,  Concord,  N.  H. 

Dear  Sir: — Understanding  that  there  is  a  proposition  be- 
fore the  Convention  for  submission  to  the  people,  so  amend- 
ing the  Constitution  as  to  confer  the  right  of  suffrage  upon 
women,  and  being  in  favor  of  the  proposition,  I  respectfully 
beg  leave,  through  you,  to  express  my  approbation  of  the 
same,  and  to  request  the  Convention  to  submit  such  proposi- 
tion to  the  people,  that  the  sentiments  of  the  legal  voters  of 
the  state  may  be  duly  expressed  thereupon  at  the  ballot  box. 

I  shall  not  argue  this  question  at  any  length,  because,  if 
there  be  any  gentleman  of  the  Convention  without  convic- 
tions upon  this  great  subject,  it  is  too  late  in  his  life,  and  in 
mine,  to  enter  upon  the  investigation. 

I  would  respectfully  call  special  attention  to  the  fact  that 
the  true  mission  of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  in  my 


692    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

opinion,  is  to  give  to  the  voters  the  opportunity  to  express 
their  views  upon  subjects  affecting  the  public  welfare,  and 
that  the  submission  of  this  or  any  other  proposition  to  the 
people  by  no  means  implies  that  the  sentiments  of  the  Con- 
vention are  necessarily  favorable  to  the  proposition;  and  I 
should  consider  any  member  of  the  Convention  who  might 
vote  for  the  submission  of  this  or  any  other  proposition  to  the 
people,  for  their  action,  entirely  at  liberty  to  oppose  the  same, 
both  in  subsequent  discussion  and  at  the  ballot  box. 

For  more  than  half  a  century  the  proposition  to  allow 
women  to  vote  has  been  discussed  in  New  Hampshire  and 
throughout  the  country. 

During  this  time  great  changes  have  occurred  in  public 
•opinion  upon  many  questions,  social,  political,  and  theolog- 
ical. 

No  one  of  them  was  more  important  than  this.  It  is  time 
that  opportunity  be  given  for  some  expression  of  the  senti- 
ments of  the  people  upon  this  subject. 

If  it  should  be  found!  that  but  a  fragment  of  our  population 
has  been  convinced  that  women  should  have  the  right  to  vote 
by  all  this  agitation,  the  agitation  may  as  well  cease;  but,  on 
the  other  hand  it  may  appear  that  the  public  judgment  has 
been  and  is  maturing  in  favor  of  the  exercise  of  her  just 
numerical  share  of  the  sovereignty  by  woman. 

Should  this  be  found  to  be  the  case  a  strong  impetus  would 
be  given  to  what  many  believe  to  be  a  great  advance  in  the 
•cause  of  human  liberty,  the  promotion  of  universal  justice, 
iind  of  truly  republican  government,  throughout  the  world. 

The  republican  form  of  government  vests  the  sovereignty 
In  the  people.  The  only  other  logical  form  of  government  is 
it"he  one  man  power.  Sovereignty  is  sovereignty  whether  it  be 
vested  in  the  despot  or  in  the  masses  of  mankind;  and  if 
vested  in  the  masses,  there  is  no  natural  or  logical  reason  why 
it  should!  be  confined  to  the  male  sex. 

The  right  exercise  of  sovereignty  is  dependent  upon  the  vir- 
tue  and  intelligence  of  the  sovereign. 

Neither  virtue  nor  intelligence  is  confined  to  males,  nor  is 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  693 

the  exercise  of  the  sovereignty  an  act  to  be  restricted  to  the 
males  of  the  community,  because  they  are  males. 

The  suffrage  can  be  conferred  in  the  republican  form  of 
government  only  because  the  voter  has  the  necessary  virtue 
and  intelligence  to  qualify  him  for  its  proper  exercise. 

Woman  can  be  deprived  of  the  suffrage  only  because  she  is- 
so  deficient  in  virtue  and  intelligence  as  to  be  incapable  of 
properly  exercising  it. 

Voting,  or  intelligent  and  honest  exercise  of  the  suffrage,, 
is  an  act  of  the  mind  and  not  of  the  body.  The  soul  is  of  no- 
sex,  and  this  whole  sex  argument  in  connection  with  the  suf- 
frage is  utterly  illogical  and  absurd. 

If  the  sex  of  the  voter  is  to  decide  the  right  to  vote,  it  would 
be  difficult  for  man  to  show  that  his  sex  is  any  more  important 
than  that  of  woman. 

How  much  more  important  is  a  man  than  a  woman  in  rais- 
ing a  family  of  children  ?  How  much  more  important  is  man 
in  society  than  woman?  Is  his  life  worth  more?  Is  the  dollar 
worth  more  because  he  owns  it?  Do  human  rights  require 
less  protection  because  they  belong  to  women  rather  than  to 
men? 

If  man  be  physically  stronger  than  woman,  he  is  in  less 
need  of  the  law  than  woman,  and  should  have  less  voice  in 
the  making  of  it,  and  woman  should  vote  and  make  laws 
rather  than  man. 

I  believe  that  if  the  government  is  to  be  confined  to  but  one 
eex  we  would  be  better  governed  by  women  than  by  men. 

Woman  is  more  religious  than  man,  and  she  is  instinctively: 
of  a  higher  ideal  in  moral  and1  spiritual  things. 

With  equal  opportunity  she  is  the  equal  of  man  intellect- 
ually. There  is  no  public  question  which  agitates,  or  has  agi- 
tated, the  American  people  which  women  have  not  mastered' 
and  upon  which  they  cannot  vote  as  intelligently  as  the  mafe 
population. 

No  public  speaker  in  your  Convention  will  rise  in  his  place 
and  say  that  the  women  in  the  audiences  of  New  Hampshire^ 
during  the  last  quarter  of  a  century,  have  not  comprehended 
financial  and  economical  questions  as  well  as  the  men. 


694     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

She  is  always  for  temperance,  for  the  education  of  her  chil- 
dren, for  peace  and  good  order,  and  it  would  be  infinitely  more 
easy  for  her  to  convert  her  will  into  law  by  voting  than  by 
talking. 

She  has  life,  liberty,  and  property.  The  sovereignty  is  for 
their  defense.  She  has  less  of  physical  force  than  man. 

Why  then  should  she  not  have  the  sovereignty  to  defend 
her  inalienable  rights,  as  well  as  man? 

It  is  no  answer  to  say  that  as  a  class  she  does  not  want  suf- 
frage. What  right  has  a  class,  so  ignoble  as  to  surrender  its 
own  rights  as  a  class  by  the  failure  of  a  majority  to  assert 
them,  to  say  that  individuals  of  that  class  who  do  want  their 
rights  and  liberties,  shall  not 'have  them?  Why  not  give  the 
right  to  vote  to  women,  and  then  let  those  vote  who  want  to, 
and  those  abstain  from  voting  who  want  to,  just  as  in  the  case 
of  men? 

But  women,  as  a  rule,  desire  to  vote.  So  long  dependent 
upon  the  stronger  sex,  and  so  uncertain  of  any  change  for 
the  better,  from  this  agitation,  sensitive  to  ridicule  and 
naturally  anxious  to  please  the  stronger  sex,  upon  which  she 
is  so  dependent,  woman  often  withholds  the  true  expression  of 
the  secret  desire  of  her  heart  for  the  exercise  of  the  full-orbed 
rights  of  a  human  being. 

But,  without  taking  the  time  of  the  Convention,  as  one  of 
the  stronger  sex,  of  mature  years,  anxious  for  the  highest  good 
of  our  state,  our  country,  and  the  world,  I  earnestly  desire 
that  women  shall  have  every  right  that  I  have,  or  that  any- 
body has. 

I  beg  of  the  Convention  to  give  the  people  an  opportunity 
to  make  women  free  as  men  are  free,  in  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire. 

Trusting  that  I  may  not  too  far  trespass  upon  your  courtesy 
or  upon  the  time  of  the  Convention  in  asking  that  the  con- 
tents of  this  letter  may  come  to  its  knowledge,  I  am,  my  dear 
sir, 

Very  respectfully  your  obedient  servant, 

HENRY  W.  BLAIR. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  695 

The  President — For  the  information  of  the  Convention  the 
t-hair  will  state  the  question.  On  December  11  the  Conven- 
tion adopted  the  following  amendment:  "Resolved,  That  the 
word  'male'  be  stricken  from  article  twenty-seven,  part  two  of 
the  Constitution.''  After  the  passage  of  that  amendment,  a 
motion  to  reconsider  was  made,  and  that  motion  was  laid  upon 
the  table  and  was  made  a  special  order  for  this  hour.  The 
question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  motion  to  reconsider  the 
vote  whereby  the  amendment  was  adopted.  Is  the  Conven- 
tion ready  for  the  question? 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — I  desire  to  detain  the  house  but 
one  moment.  I  think  in  a  matter  of  this  importance  I  ought 
to  put  myself  on  record  as  to  why  I  vote  as  I  shall  vote  on  this 
resolution.  It  is  my  firm  belief  that  three  fourths  at  least  of 
the  entire  women  of  this  state  do  not  desire  the  right  of  suf- 
frage. I  believe,  gentlemen,  if  each  one  of  you  will  take  his 
own  personal  acquaintances  and  ascertain  the  opinions  of 
those  whom  he  reveres  he  will  see  that  three  out  of  four  good 
women  for  whom  he  has  respect  would  not  ask  this  privilege 
of  voting.  I  have  n't  any  doubt  but  that  when  it  is  made  to 
appear  to  the  legislature  of  this  state  that  a  large  majority  of 
the  intelligent  women  of  the  state  desire  the  right  of  suffrage 
it  will  grant  it  to  them.  Now  if  it  is  a  fact  that  the  majority 
of  the  intelligent  women  of  the  state  do  not  want  to  vote,  what 
Avould  be  the  practical  result  of  giving  them  the  franchise. 
To  my  mind,  it  would  be  this, — the  less  intelligent  and  less 
moral  women  of  the  country  would  be  found  at  the  polls; 
every  man  who  would  sell  his  vote  for  $5  at  an  election  would 
be  there,  and  take  his  wife,  if  he  has  one,  and  his  daughter,  if 
he  has  one,  and  make  so  much  more  for  the  family.  Gentle- 
men, would  your  wife  and  mine  go  to  the  polls  when  such  a 
condition  as  that  exists?  I  say  "No." 

Gentlemen,  I  think  we  madJe  a  mistake  when  we  did  n't 
have  a  chance  to  vote  on  the  amendment  proposed  by  the  gen- 
tleman from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich.  I  was  very  sorry  that  we 
<3ould  not  have  acted  upon  it,  for  if  we  had  and  his  proposition 


696     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

had  been  carried  and  finally  adopted,  there  would  have  beei* 
some  provision  for  the  future,  whenever  a  majority  of  womerr 
desire  the  privilege.,  but  if  you  take  the  question  as  it  is  now 
before  the  Convention  and  submit  it  to  the  people,  as  the- 
friends  of  the  measure  say,  it  may  be  voted  down  by  the  peo- 
ple and  you  are  right  where  you  started.  If  a  constitutional 
amendment  is  necessary,  why  not  draw  an  amendment  here 
that  the  legislature  shall  have  the  authority  when  it  appears 
that  a  majority  of  women  want  the  right  of  suffrage  to  give  it 
to  them.  I  think  the  resolution  ought  to  be  put  in  that  way, 
and  then  if  the  women  don't  get  at  one  session  what  they  de- 
sire they  still  have  the  right  to  go  to  the  next  session,  and  you 
have  continually  a  power  in  the  legislature  to  grant  this  right 
of  women's  suffrage  whenever  they  see  that  the  majority  of 
the  women  desire  it.  All  you  would  then  have  to  do  would  be 
to  make  it  plain  to  the  legislature  that  a  majority  of  th& 
women  of  this  state  wanted  the  right  and  they  would  get  it. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — I  will  take  but  a  minute  of 
the  time  of  this  Convention.  I  desire  to  say  that  since  this 
question  came  up  I  have  received  the  views  of  a  large  number 
of  women  from  other  states  with  reference  to  woman's  suf- 
frage, and  have  received  many  arguments  and  pamphlets  from 
other  cities  against  it. 

There  has  been  read  to  this  Convention  a  communication 
from  Hon.  Henry  W.  Blair.  I  desire  to  offset  that  voice  from 
the  past  with  a  voice  from  the  present.  I  have  in  my  hands  a 
Manchester  Union,  and  in  it  is  an  article  which  perhaps  some 
of  you  have  read  and  some  have  not.  It  is  an  address  made  by 
the  governor-elect  of  New  Hampshire,  and  I  desire  to  read  an 
extract  from  his  remarks: 

"In  this  period  of  activity  among  the  promoters  of  so-called 
equal  suffrage,  however  much  we  may  force  it,  we  should  not 
lose  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  future  welfare  of  the  country 
will  be  determined  in  the  homes  of  the  nation  rather  than  at 
the  ballot  box.  The  affairs  of  state  and  nation  will  be  shaped 
in  the  future  as  in  the  past  by  people  whose  principles  of  hon- 


THUKSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  69T 

esty,  integrity,  and)  morality  have  been  fixed  by  home  in- 
fluence in  youthful  days  rather  than  by  legislation.  What 
honest  man  to-day  cannot  (recall  the  home  influence  expressed 
in  the  fondness  and  devotion  of  a  mother,  the  deep  affection 
of  a  sister,  or  the  love  and  fond  encouragement  of  a  wife,  in 
the  sweet  atmosphere  of  home,  stimulating  him  to  better  and 
greater  deeds. 

"We  should  remember  that  participation  of  woman  in  pub- 
lic affairs  always  tends  to  draw  her  interest  away  from  her 
most  sacred  duty,  that  of  home  making.  He  who  compares 
the  condition  of  the  shackled  slave  in  bondage  with  the  con- 
dition of  women  without  the  ballot  box  has  but  slight 
comprehension  of  the  sphere  and  influence  of  woman  in  shap- 
ing the  destiny  of  the  nation  through  home  influence  and 
would  be  almost  justified  in  comparing  the  condition  of 
shackled  inmates  of  hell  with  the  saints  of  heaven. 

"When  woman  wants  the  ballot  no  honest,  intelligent  man 
will  withhold  it  from  her.  The  lack  of  interest  among  women 
in  securing  the  ballot  is  not  so  much  from  failure  to  recognize 
its  value  as  from  a  true  appreciation  of  their  present  exalted 
position  in  the  homes  of  the  nation. 

"When  woman  wants  the  ballot  this  organization  will  not 
oe  an  obstacle  in  her  path  and1  will  even  help  her  to  secure  it,, 
but  in  the  discussion  of  the  matter  let  us  not  overlook  the  im- 
portance of  an  earnest  effort  to  inspire  woman  with  a  true 
appreciation  of  her  present  influence  and  power  as  a  home 
maker  and  character  builder,  and  the  loss  to  the  nation  from 
any  movement  that  detracts  in  the  slightest  degree  from  her 
intuitive  conception  of  mind  and  heart  in  her  noble  mission 
of  contributing  to  the  home-making  and  home-loving  ten- 
dency of  the  American  people." 

Those  are  the  remarks  of  the  gentleman  whom  you  elected 
as  chief  magistrate  of  this  state.  They  were  made  after  he 
had  been  master  for  eleven  years  of  the  State  Grange,  and 
has  visited  the  homes  throughout  the  state.  He  speaks  as  a 
man  of  experience  in  regard  to  the  homes  of  New  Hampshire, 
and  I  do  not  believe  that  anybody  on  this  floor  could  address 


698     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

us  more  intelligently  than  Governor-elect  Bachelder  on  this 
question. 

I  have  only  this  to  say.  I  do  not  believe  that  any  man  has 
&ny  moral  right  to  send  to  the  people  of  this  state,  with  the 
recommendation  of  this  committee,  any  amendment  which  he 
will  not  support  at  the  polls,  and  which  he  does  not  believe 
should  be  enacted. 

Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester — This  is  a  specious  plea  which  the 
gentlemen  in  favor  of  this  resolution  offers  us — that  it  does 
not  go  to  the  merits  of  the  question.  I  hope  every  gentleman 
in  this  body  who  is  opposed  to  this  resolution  will  not  be 
fooled  by  any  such  plea  as  that.  I  am  opposed  to  the  resolu- 
tion and  in  favor  of  the  reconsideration  of  the  action  of  the 
Convention  taken  the  other  day,  because  I  believe  the 
founders  of  this  government,  and  of  every  other  government 
under  the  sun,  imposed  the  responsibility  and  power  of  main- 
taining government  upon  the  men.  Manhood  suffrage  was 
the  standard,  not  because  man  had  any  inherent^  natural,  or 
inalienable  right,  but  because  the  framers  of  the  Constitution 
knew  that  behind  the  ballot  must  be  the  power  to  enforce  the 
law. 

We  have  only  to  recall  what  was  done  in  this  chamber  last 
Friday  to  prove  conclusively  that  suffrage  is  not  a  natural  and 
inherent  right.  On  that  day  we  voted  to  submit  to  the  people 
an  amendment  to  our  Constitution  which  provided  for  an 
educational  test  for  voters.  Under  the  provisions  of  that 
amendment,  if  it  is  adopted,  very  many  men  who  are  other- 
wise qualified  for  the  suffrage  are  disenfranchised  because  a 
great  many  of  them  may  not  be  able  to  read  and  write  in  the 
English  language,  although  they  can  in  their  own  tongue,  and 
they  may  own  property,  and  yet  they  will  be  deprived  of  the 
right  of  suffrage.  Now,  I  did  not  hear  a  single  member  of 
this  house  rise  to  complain  and  say  that  it  was  an  outrage 
upon  those  men  and  an  outrage  upon  the  inherent  and  in- 
alienable right  of  those  people  to  deny  them  the  right  to  vote. 
There  was  not  one  in  the  house  heard  to  utter  a  protest 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  699 

against  the  proposed  amendment,  or  to  say  that  it  was  wrong 
to  have  taxation  without  representation. 

Our  Constitution  speaks  of  life,  liberty,  and  the  pursuit  of 
happiness,  and  says  that  those  are  the  inherent  rights  of  the 
people,  but  it  does  not  state  anywhere  that  representation  is 
an  inherent  right  or  that  the  right  of  suffrage  is  an  inherent 
right. 

I  am  opposed  to  woman's  suffrage  because  I  believe  it  is 
fundamentally,  organically,  and  functionally  wrong.  I  be- 
lieve the  place  and  sphere  of  women  is  the  home,  I  be- 
lieve that  society  rests  upon  the  family,  and  that  as  the  fam- 
ily is  vigorous  and  strong  and  happy  and  prosperous,  in  the 
same  degree  and  in  the  same  ratio  is  the  government  and  the 
state  well  governed  and  prosperous. 

Mr.  S.  W.  Emery  of  Portsmouth — I  had  no  intention  of 
taking  part  in  this  debate,  but  I  think  every  one  should  be 
able  to  explain  the  ground  upon  which  he  stands  in  this 
matter. 

I  have  heard  no  one  complain  that  women  are  oppressed, 
that  is,  any  legislation  that  they  ask  for  that  they  cannot  get, 
or,  that  they  in  any  way  are  denied  any  rights  except  the  right 
of  suffrage.  In  this  state,  within  the  last  fifty  years,  women's 
rights  of  holding  property  have  been  extended  as  fast  as  the 
spirit  of  the  times  warranted,  and  I  have  heard  no  one  com- 
plain that  a  woman  in  respect  to  her  property  does  not  have 
as  much  right  to  act  with  reference  to  it  as  her  husband  does 
with  reference  to  his  property. 

It  has  been  said  in  this  Convention  if  you  get  women  into 
politics  it  is  going  to  purify  it.  In  the  state  of  Colorado  they 
enfranchised  women  fully  in  1893,  and  in  the  city  of  Denver 
at  the  last  election  there  were  some  forty  or  fifty  of  the  lead- 
ing Democratic  and  Republican  lawyers  who  joined  in  a  re- 
quest that  the  repeaters  and  thugs  and  such  like  be  punished 
for  violation  of  the  election  laws,  and  it  was  said  that  some  of 
the  people  accused  of  violating  them  were  women.  Now  if  we 
bring  women  into  politics  it  will  not  elevate  politics  but  it 
will  degrade  the  women. 


700     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Another  thing.  I  have  heard  it  reported  that  this  is  going 
to  affect  the  laws  in  favor  of  temperance.  I  believe  in  every 
one  of  the  states  in  which  the  women  are  enfranchised  the 
local  option  law  obtains,  and  not  a  single  one  of  those  states 
has  a  prohibitory  statute,  nor  is  it  likely  that  they  will  have. 
So  I  cannot  see  anything  in  that  point. 

Furthermore,  I  do  not  believe  that  one  woman  in  ten  will 
go  to  the  polls  to  vote.  It  seems  to  me  that  this  agitation 
comes  from  a  few  women  who  have  too  much  idle  time  on 
their  hands. 

Mr.  Lamprey  of  Concord — Allusion  has  been  made  by  the 
last  speaker  to  the  dire  results  that  have  taken  place  in  the 
state  of  Colorado.  I  wish  to  read  an  extract  here  that  has 
come  directly  from  that  state,  which  shows  what  the  people 
of  Colorado  think  to-day. 

"We,  citizens  of  the  state  of  Colorado,  desire  as  lovers  of 
truth  and  justice,  to  give  our  testimony  to  the  value  of  equal 
suffrage. 

We  believe  that  the  greatest  good  of  the  home,  the  state, 
and  the  nation  is  advanced  through  the  operation  of  equal 
suffrage.  The  evils  predicted  have  not  come  to  pass.  The 
benefits  claimed  for  it  have  been  secured!,  or  are  in  process  of 
development.  A  very  large  proportion  of  Colorado  women 
have  conscientiously  accepted  their  responsibility  as  citizens. 
In  1894  more  than  half  the  total  vote  for  governor  was  cast 
by  women.  Between  85  and  90  per  cent,  of  the  women  of  the 
state  voted  at  that  time.  The  exact  vote  of  the  last  election 
has  not  yet  been  estimated,  but  there  is  reason  to  believe  that 
the  proportional  vote  of  women  was  as  large  as  in  previous 
years. 

The  vote  of  good  women,  like  that  of  good  men,  is  involved 
in  the  evils  resulting  from  the  abuse  of  our  present  political 
system;  but  the  vote  of  women  is  noticeably  more  conscien- 
tious than  that  of  men,  and  will  be  an  important  factor  in 
bringing  abo<ut  a  better  order." 

This  statement  is  signed  by  forty  or  fifty  of  the  leading 


THUHSDAY,  DECEMBEK  18,  1902.  701 

men  in  education  and  politics.  It  has  come  directly  from  the 
state  where  the  evils  that  have  been  spoken  of  are  said  to 
exist. 

I  wish  simply  to  notice  one  allusion  made  hy  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin,  Mr.  Leach.  He  says  if  women  are  granted  the 
right  of  franchise  that  only  the  less  intelligent  and  the  less 
virtuous  of  the  women  will  improve  their  opportunities.  If 
that  is  his  estimate  of  women,  I  wish  to  say  here,  and  wish  to 
be  put  on  record,  that  it  is  very  different  from  mine.  I  do 
not  believe  that  the  good  women  of  the  state  are  going  to 
stay  closeted  at  home  after  asking  this  privilege  and  after  it 
has  been  conferred  upon  them.  I  do  not  believe  these  women 
will  stay  at  home  and  see  the  less  virtuous  and  the  less  intelli- 
gent represent  them  when  they  have  asked  to  have  this  privi- 
lege conferred  upon  them. 

The  gentleman  says  the  home  influences  will  be  corrupted 
and  weakened.  As  though  the  women,  the  mother  and  the 
sister,  could  not  give  two  days  in  a  year  to  look  after  public 
interests  without  ignoring  her  home!  That  is  a  bare  assertion 
that  cannot  be  sustained.  There  is  no  argument  in  it. 

Now,  gentlemen,  if  we  confer  this  right  upon  the  women  of 
this  state  it  is  not  the  less  virtuous  and  the  less  intelligent 
who  will  avail  themselves  of  the  privilege,  but  it  is  the  good 
women  who  come  here  and  who  have  asked  us  simply  for  the 
privilege  of  submitting  this  question  to  the  people.  They  do 
not  ask  us  to  confer  suffrage  upon  them,  but  they  ask  in  the 
most  courteous  terms  that  we  give  them  the  right  to  go  to 
the  people  of  the  state  and  to  ask  the  people  if  they  are  will- 
ing to  confer  it. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — I  did  not  intend  to  say  any- 
thing upon  this  question  to-day,  as  I  have  already  expressed 
myself  in  favor  of  this  resolution,  when  it  was  before  the  Con- 
vention last  week. 

Since  that  time,  we  have  been  flooded  with  foreign  litera- 
ture and  newspaper  criticisms  from  the  opponents  of  women 
suffrage.  After  such  examination  of  these  documents  and 


702    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

criticisms  as  1  have  been  able  to  make,  I  fail  to  find  any  valid 
reason  why  we  should  not  adhere  to  what  we  did  last  week, 
when  we  voted  to  submit  this  resolution  to  the  people. 

Before  the  people  will  be  called  upon  to  vote  upon  it  they 
will  have  ample  opportunity  to  inform  themselves  so  as  to 
vote  intelligently. 

I  do  not  think  we  have  any  occasion  to  fear  such  injurious 
results  as  our  opponents  predict,  should  this  resolution  be 
ratified  by  two  thirds  of  the  voters  of  this  state.  This  talk 
about  its  increasing  corruption  in  politics  is  simply  an  asser- 
tion, unsupported  by  evidence. 

The  effect  of  placing  the  ballot  in  tihe  hands  of  womeji 
would,  in  my  judgment,  be  elevating  rather  than  degrading. 

Another  reason  assigned  in  one  of  these  circulars  against 
equal  suffrage  is,  that,  if  women  are  permitted  to  vote,  they 
will  be  constantly  making  unreasonable  attempts  to  increase 
their  pay,  and  demand  shorter  days,  and  perform  less  labor. 

If  the  granting  of  equal  suffrage  to  women  will  tend  in  any 
way  to  alleviate  the  sufferings  of  those  poor  women,  who 
are  obliged  to  work  in  sweat  shops  twelve  or  thirteen  hours  a 
day  for  wages  hardly  sufficient  to  sustain  life,  every  member 
of  this  Convention  ought  to  be  in  favor  of  granting  it  at  once. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — Does  the  gentleman  from 
Somersworth  wish  us  to  infer  that  there  are  sweat  shops  ex- 
isting in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  compelling  women  to 
work  twelve  or  thirteen  hours  a  day? 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — I  do  not  wish  to  assert  that, 
but  there  are  such  shops  in  this  country,  and  as  the  gentle- 
man, who  spoke  so  eloquently  on  Trusts,  said,  "The  example 
of  New  Hampshire  may  help  the  poor  suffering  women, 
where  those  conditions  exist." 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  desire,  Mr.  Chairman,  simply  to 
make  a  statement.  This  Convention  must  not  be  drawn  away 
from  the  point  under  consideration.  Some  members,  in  dis- 
cussing this  question,  evidently  apprehend  that  we  are  to> 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  70S 

settle  this  matter  here  and  now,  and  perhaps  fear  that  after 
we  have  settled  it  the  women  will  be  here  and  occupy  our 
seats.  This  question  is  a  question  of  submission  to  the  people 
whether  they  are  in  favor  of  granting  the  right  of  suffrage  to 
women.  The  people  who  will  vote  upon  that  question  are 
the  present  voters — the  men. 

The  gentlemen  who  have  argued  against  this  question  are 
positive  in  their  assertions  that  a  majority  of  the  men  are  op- 
posed to  this  amendment.  In  addition  to  that,  they  say  that 
a  very  large  majority  of  the  women  are  opposed  to  this 
amendment.  I  know  of  no  more  convincing  illustration  of 
woman's  influence  upon  men  than  the  example  given  this 
Convention  by  the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  of 
the  influence  upon  him  "of  women. 

Now  then,  if  all  women,  or  nearly  all,  in  this  state  do  not 
desire  the  franchise  and  they  have  the  influence  with  their 
husbands  and  their  fathers  and  their  brothers  that  is  asserted 
here  by  those  opposed  to  the  submission  of  this  question  to 
the  people,  then  the  gentlemen  need  have  no  fear  of  the 
amendment  being  carried  by  the  people. 

I  shall  vote  against  the  reconsideration  of  this  question  and 
in  favor  of  submitting  it  to  the  people. 

Mr.  Woodbury  of  Bedford — Unfortunately  for  me  I  arrived 
at  this  session  too  late  to«  have  heard  all  the  arguments  that 
were  made  this  morning  upon  this  question.  I  feel,  with  the 
gentleman  from  Portsmouth,  Mr.  Emery,  that  I  should  be 
delinquent  if  I  failed  to  express  the  opinion  of  one  of  your 
body  on  this  subject. 

Gentlemen  have  stated  that  the  action  of  this  Convention 
is  conclusive  upon  this  question — that  no  man  should  vote 
liere  as  he  will  not  vote  at  the  polls.  But  it  seems  to  me  that 
the  views  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  is  the 
more  correct.  If  I  understand  our  position  correctly,  we  are 
asked  to  grant,  not  a  privilege,  but  a  right.  It  is  the  right  of 
suffrage,  and  it  is  a  right  dependent  in  its  last  analysis  upon 
the  power  of  the  voters  to  bear  their  just  share  of  the  burdens 


704     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

of  the  state.  That  is  to  say,  the  question  of  who  pays  the 
taxes  is  the  important  question.  We  have  come  here  and  for 
three  weeks  have  been  doing  our  best  to  arrive  at  a  basis  of 
equality  of  representation.  We  have  labored  hard  and  have 
not  as  yet  produced  any  affirmative  results.  Is  not  the  way 
open  here  to  us  to  very  easily  take  a  long  step  in  the  direction 
of  that  equality?  I  believe  that  no  member  of  this  body  for 
a  moment  fails  in  his  allegiance  to  his  wife,  mother,  or  sister. 
I  believe  no  man  here  desires  to  degrade  or  disparage  them  in 
the  slightest  or  remotest  degree,  and  I  believe  also  that  no 
man  here  would  refuse  any  reasonable  request  which  they 
might  prefer.  Now  the  only  organization  which  women  have 
has  been  present  here  through  their  delegates  and  representa- 
tives, and  they  have  asked  us  for  what  they  consider  their 
rights,  and  it  is  for  us  to  determine,  not  whether  we  will  give 
them  their  rights,  because  that  is  beyond  our  power,  but 
whether  we  will  go  home  to  our  fellow-citizens  and  say  to 
them,  "This  request  has  been  preferred  to  us,  your  repre- 
sentatives, and  we  have  done  no  more  than  to  pass  it  on  for 
you  to  act  upon."  It  seems  to  me  it  would  be  a  very  serious 
injury  in  some  aspects  to  introduce  into  the  contest  of  the 
primaries  and  the  conventions  the  sacred  gods  of  the  house- 
hold that  we  like  to  guard  from  anything  of  that  kind.  But 
I  take  it  we  are  to  remember  that  the  women  come  to  us  say- 
ing that  they  want  to  share  with  us  still  more  largely  in  the 
burden  of  public  affairs,  and  that  they  want  to  have  a  larger 
voice  in  the  management  of  the  affairs  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire,  and  it  is  for  us  to  determine  whether  they  are  to 
be  treated  like  children  and  told  "no,"  or  to  be  treated  like 
superiors  who  have  only  to  prefer  a  request  and  it  is  granted 
at  once. 

Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia — At  the  time  this  matter  came  be- 
fore the  Convention  I  did  not  ask  the  privilege  of  addressing 
you,  but  in  view  of  the  motion  which  is  now  being  considered 
I  deem  it  my  duty  to  express  my  views  very  briefly,  and  it 
must  be  so. because  I  see  the  hour  is  fast  approaching  when 
the  vote  is  to  be  taken. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  705 

I  want  to  preface  what  I  am  about  to  say  by  stating  that  I 
take  no  second  place  to  any  man  in  this  Convention,  or  any 
man  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  in  my  respect  for  wo- 
manhood. No  man  who  has  sat  at  his  mother's  knee,  or  who 
has  regard  for  his  wife,  mother,  or  sister,  can  accuse  me  of 
want  of  respect  for  womankind.  But  notwithstanding  this,  I 
am  not  prepared  to  vote  for  the  amendment  suggested  by  the 
gentleman  from  Warner,  Mr.  Thompson,  that  the  word 
"male"  should  be  stricken  from  article  twenty-seven  of  the 
Constitution.  I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  public  exigency, 
or  any  demand  on  the  part  of  the  women  of  New  Hampshire, 
which  necessitates  any  such  amendment  of  the  fundamental 
law  of  this  state.  I  am  not  prepared  to  say  how  many  women 
of  New  Hampshire  ask  for  this  amendment,  but  as  far  as  has 
come  to  my  knowledge  I  understand  there  are  something  like 
2,600  women  who  ask  for  it,  and  there  are  about  110,000  wo- 
men, Mr.  President,  who  ask  nothing  of  the  kind.  I  may  be 
right,  and  I  may  be  wrong,  but  I  assume  that  I  am  right. 

Now,  the  proposition  suggested  here  is  to  strike  out  from 
article  twenty-seven  the  word  "male."  That  article  reads  now 
as  follows: 

"The  senate  shall  be  the  first  branch  of  the  legislature,  and 
the  senators  shall  be  chosen  in  the  following  manner,  namely, 
every  male  inhabitant  of  each  town  and  parish  with  town 
privileges,"  etc. 

The  purpose  is  to  strike  out  from  that  article  the  word 
"male"  so  that  it  will  read:  "Every  inhabitant  of  each  town 
and  parish  ...  of  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  up- 
wards," shall  have  the  right  to  vote.  There  is  an  able  stand- 
ing committee  to  whom  matters  of  this  kind  should  ordinarily 
be  referred,  namely,  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Depart- 
ment, and  the  question  ought  to  be  referred  to  them  as  to 
whether  or  not  the  elimination  of  the  word  "male"  will  place 
upon  every  inhabitant  above  twenty  years  of  age  the  absolute 
right  to  vote,  whether  naturalized  or  otherwise. 

It  seems  to  me  that  this  Convention  cannot  afford  to  place 
before  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  the  stamp  of  its  approval 

45 


706    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

of  this  amendment.  If  we  submit  this  measure  to  the  people, 
it  will  go  to  them,  with  the  approval  of  this  Convention  that 
the  word  "male"  be  stricken  from  this  article  in  the  Constitu- 
tion, and  they  will  have  a  right  to  assume,  and  assume  prop- 
erly, Mr.  President,  when  they  vote  on  this  amendment  that 
it  has  the  approval  of  a  select  body  of  men  elected  to  repre- 
sent the  people  from  every  town  and  ward  of  this  state. 

I  do  not  propose  to  talk  any  longer  now,  but  I  say  simply 
this.  To  send  out  from  this  Convention  our  approval  of  the 
proposed  amendment  to  strike  out  the  word  "male,"  without 
first  having  the  opinion  of  the  proper  committee  as  to  what 
the  legal  effect  of  the  amendment  will  be  if  adopted  by  the 
people  of  New  Hampshire,  will  be  wrong. 

I  believe  that  the  adoption  of  this  amendment  instead  of 
raising  the  standard  of  manhood,  would  lower  the  standard 
of  womanhood. 

The  question  being  stated,  by  unanimous  consent,  the  yeas 
and  nays  were  taken. 

The  following  named  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative: 

KOCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Conley,  Flanders  of  Brentwood, 
Knowles,  Kelsey  of  Deerfteld,  Gillispie,  Abbott  of  Derry, 
Wetherell,  Pillsbury,  Battles,  Peaslee,  Emery,  S.  W.,  Emery, 
S.  P.,  Paul,  Ham,  Wingate. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY.  Leighton,  Hanson  of  Dover,  Neal- 
ley,  Nute  of  Dover,  Chesley,  Webb,  Gerrish,  Moore,  Cham- 
berlain, Furbush,  Gelinas,  Cochrane,  Gunnison,  Libby,  Leary, 
Eoy,  Morin,  Hall  of  Strafford. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY.  Morrill  of  Gilford,  Pulsifer  of  La- 
conia,  Ward,  Jewett,  Thompson  of  Laconia,  Eogers,  Fellows. 

CARROLL  COUNTY.  Hobson,  Dorr,  Sanborn  of  Wakefield, 
Hersey. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY.  Blodgett  of  Allenstown,  Buxton, 
French  of  Bradford,  Virgin,  Mitchell  of  Concord,  Foster, 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  707 

Walker  of  Concord,  Howe,  Casey,  Jordan,  Ford  of  Danbury, 
Sanborn  of  Franklin,  Leach,  Wilkins,  Head,  Messer,  Todd, 
Chickering,  Truesdell,  Miller,  Lang. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Whitaker  of  Deering,  Peavey, 
Fogg,  Smith  of  Hillsborough,  Marsh,  Tarbell,  Lambert,  Ab- 
bott of  Manchester,  Cross,  Green  of  Manchester,  Dodge  of 
Manchester,  Bontwell,  Jones,  Robinson,  Tremblay,  Lord, 
Hill,  Precourt,  McDonough,  Tonery,  Starr,  Horan,  Sullivan, 
Griffin,  Jennings,  McAllister,  Quirin  Joseph,  Clement  of  Man- 
chester, Richer,  Provost,  Plante,  Quirin  Eugene,  Guerin,  Hall 
of  Manchester,  Trinity,  Gordon,  Raymond,  Spring,  Harriman, 
Ledoux,  Hallinan,  Proctor,  Shedd,  Earley,  Slattery,  Blan- 
chard,  Seavey,  Scott,  Richardson,  Bales,  Chapman. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Learned,  Collins  of  Gilsum,  Farwell, 
Buckley,  Hall  of  Keene,  Woodward,  Osgood,  Emory,  Mc- 
Clure,  Day,  Stone  of  Troy,  Spaulding,  Goodnow. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY.  Brooks,  Tenney,  Colby,  Burpee, 
Holmes,  Bradley,  Barton,  Penniman,  Brown  of  Springfield, 
Brockway. 

GRAFTON  COUNTY.  Bucklin,  Dearborn  of  Ashland,  Par- 
ker of  Benton,  Morrill  of  Bridge  water,  Chase  of  Bristol,  Pul- 
sifer  of  Campton,  Richardson  of  Canaan,  Dresser,  Walker  of 
Graf  ton,  Kidder,  Ward,  Colby  of  Hanover,  Westgate,  Sloane, 
Jewell  of  Hebron,  Flanders,  Drake,  Henry,  Aldrich  of  Little- 
ton, Morse,  French  of  Orange,  Lamprey  of  Orford,  Went- 
worth,  Craig  of  Rumney,  Green  of  Waterville,  Shute. 

Coos  COUNTY.  Moffett,  Rich,  Daley,  Boudreau,  Murray, 
Johnson,  Thurston,  Kent,  Hartley,  Phipps,  Pike  of  Stark, 
Hinman,  Dodge  of  Whitefield. 

The  following  named  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative: 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Sanborn  of  Auburn,  Eaton,  Kim- 
ball  of  Danville,  Sanders,  Eastman,  Follansbee,  Fuller,  Leddy, 
Hooke,  Sanborn  of  Hampstead,  Weare,  Shaw,  Chase  of  Kings- 


708     JOURNAL  OP  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ton,  Pollard,  de  Rochemont,  Burley,  Walker  of  Newmarket^ 
Gate,  Kelsey  of  Nottingham,  Howard,  Norris,  Cullen,  Healey, 
Sawyer  of  Rye,  Cole,  Wheeler,  Locke  of  Seabrook,  Jewell  of 
South  Hampton,  Clark  of  Windhani. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY.  Morrison  of  Dover,  Moulton,  Rob- 
erts, Hall  of  Dover,  Morang,  Murphy,  Willson  of  Farmington, 
Nute  of  Rochester,  Meader,  Springfield,  Nutter  of  Rollins- 
ford,  Edgerly. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY.  Demeritt,  Colbath,  Bryar,  Clark  of 
Center  Harbor,  Cogswell,  Gorrell,  Busiel,  Lewis,  Smith  of 
Meredith,  Smith  of  New  Hampton,  Knox. 

CARROLL  COUNTY.  Nickerson,  Rideout,  Colman,  Spencer, 
Gibson,  Morrill  of  Conway,  Dearborn  of  Eaton,  Harmon,  Mer- 
row,  Murch,  Meserve,  Oilman,  Goodwin,  Brown  of  Ossipee, 
Morrison  of  Tuftonborough. 

MERRIMACK'  COUNTY.  Stone  of  Andover,  Baker,  Frame, 
Sanborn  of  Chichester,  Dudley  of  Concord,  Foote,  Hollis, 
Lyford,  Niles,  Kimball  of  Concord,  Lamprey  of  Concord,  In- 
galls,  Chandler,  Caldwell,  Dolbeer,  Stone  of  Franklin,  Towne, 
Wilson  of  Hill,  Putnam,  Wyatt,  Green  of  Pittsfield,  Thomp- 
son of  Warner. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Hubbard,  Woodbury  of  Bed- 
ford, Kimball  of  Bennington,  Fessenden,  Downes,  Colby, 
Paige  of  Goffstown,  Bacon,  Holman,  Powers  of  Hol- 
lis, Briggs,  Hunt,  Little,  Rose,  Gilmore,  Farrington,  Harvey, 
Irwin,  Allen,  McQuesten,  Powers  of  Manchester,  McElroy, 
Greager,  Nettle,  Paige  of  Manchester,  Whitaker  of  Mason, 
Knight,  Rotch,  Worcester,  Hamblett,  Clough  of  Nashua,  Par- 
ker of  Nashua,  Wason,  Runnells,  McKay,  Flather,  Desmarais, 
Dodge  of  New  Boston,  Morrison  of  Peterborough,  Simons. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Cooke,  Amidon,  Blake,  Poole,  An- 
nett,  Taft,  Wright,  Foskett,  Newell,  Craig  of  Marlow,  Cass, 
Buckminster,  Rugg,  Clement  of  Surry,  Kiniry,  Davis. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY.     Mitchell  of  Acworth,  Stockwell,  Ros- 


THUESDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  709 

siter,  Fairbanks,  Ide,  Hanson  of  Goshen,  Noyes,  Bartlett, 
Newton. 

GKAFTON  COUNTY.  Carbee,  Hildreth  of  Bethlehem,  Ash- 
ley, Young  of  Easton,  Avery,  Cumings,  Parker  of  Franconia, 
Pike  of  Haverhill,  Glazier,  Dewey,  Hibbard,  Woolson,  Morris, 
Green  of  Littleton,  Melvin,  Warden,  Eussell,  Woodbury  of 
Woodstock. 

Coos  COUNTY.  Wight  of  Berlin,  Miles,  Titus,  Britton, 
Wight  of  Dummer,  Evans,  Crawford,  Perkins,  McKellips, 
Blanchard,  Watson,  Philbrook,  Aldrich  of  Whitefield. 

And  177  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  186 
gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  negative,  the  motion  to  re- 
consider was  lost,  and  the  resolution  was  referred  to  the  Com- 
mittee on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the 
Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

The  chair  appointed  the  following  Committee  on  Publish- 
ing the  Reports  of  the  Proceedings  of  the  Convention,  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  resolution  adopted  yesterday:  Messrs.  Bux- 
ton  of  Boscawen,  Jewett  of  Laconia,  Bales  of  Wilton,  Spring 
of  Nashua,  and  Jones  of  Manchester. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  called  for  the  special  order,  it 
being  the  amendment  reported  by  the  Committee  on  the  Bill 
of  Rights  and  Executive  Department  in  relation  to  trusts,  to- 
gether with  the  resolution  of  the  committee  that  the  amend- 
ment be  adopted. 

Question:    Upon  the  adoption  of  the  resolution. 

By  unanimous  consent,  at  the  suggestion  of  Mr.  Aldrich  of 
Littleton,  the  word  "thereof"  at  the  end  of  the  amendment 
reported  from  the  committee  was  stricken  out. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — I  said  last  evening  that  I  did  not 
intend  to  engage  in  any  discussion  of  this  matter,  but  after 


710     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

considering  the  resolution  as  reported  by  the  committee,,  I 
cannot  vote  for  the  same,  and  wish  to  state  my  reasons  for 
opposing  it. 

The  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  stated  that 
the  present  Constitution  probably  gave  to  the  legislature  all 
the  power  necessary  to  enable  it  to  enact  laws  to  meet  the 
evils  complained  of  in  relation  to  trusts.  The  gentleman 
from  Littleton,  in  the  very  elaborate  address  he  gave  us, 
stated  that  the  purpose  of  this  resolution  was  to  assist  the 
gentleman  who  presides  over  the  affairs  of  this  government, 
and  to  declare  to  the  other  states  and  to  the  world  that  the 
people  of  New  Hampshire  are  opposed  to  unlawful  monopo- 
lies. "We  all  agree  with  the  distinguished  gentleman  from 
Littleton  in  being  opposed  to  these  unlawful  combinations. 
Every  one  in  New  Hampshire  is  opposed  to  the  unlawful  com- 
bination of  capital;  but  I  submit  that  it  is  not  necessary  for  us 
to  add  to  our  Constitution  or  give  out  to  the  world  a  declara- 
tion that  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  is  opposed  to  such  com- 
binations. I  do  not  believe  it  is  necessary  for  us  to  declare  to 
the  president  or  to  our  representatives  in  congress  that  we 
oppose  such  combinations.  The  fact  is,  gentlemen,  that  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  has  already  declared  through  its  leg- 
islature from  time  to  time  against  these  combinations,  and  we 
have  given  to  the  world,  and  to  the  gentleman  who  presides 
over  the  affairs  of  this  country,  those  very  remedies  which  the 
gentleman  from  Litttleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  said  were  necessary, 
namely,  publicity  and  control.  Examine,  if  you  will,  the 
statutes  of  New  Hampshire,  authorized  by  and  based  upon 
the  Constitution  which  you  seek  to  amend.  Can  we  have  any 
of  the  unlawful  corporations  complained  of?  Not  one.  The 
corporations  organized  under  the  laws  of  this  state,  unlike 
those  of  many  other  states,  must  have  a  paid-up  capital,  and 
that  capital  must  be  paid  in  in  cash;  any  false  returns  made 
under  oath — and  the  statute  provides  that  returns  shall  be 
made  under  oath — make  the  person  filing  such  returns  guilty 
of  perjury;  the  over-issue  of  any  of  the  capital  stock  is  a  crim- 
inal offense;  under  our  statutes  a  stockholders5  liability  is 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  711 

created;  and  every  opportunity  is  given  to  ascertain  how  these 
corporations  are  managed  and  controlled.  These  laws  for  the- 
most  part  have  been  tested,  and  the  supreme  court  of  our 
state  has  declared  that  they  are  constitutional.  Now  why 
should  we  incorporate  into  our  Constitution  that  which  is 
unnecessary;  that  which  the  author  of  the  resolution,  the  gen- 
tleman from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  and  that  which  the  gen- 
tleman from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  have  said  is  simply  for 
the  purpose  of  declaring  to  the  world  our  position  with  refer- 
ence to  this  matter,  when  this  state,  through  its  legislatures, 
has  been  one  of  the  foremost  in  the  nation  in  enacting  laws 
to  prevent  these  combinations  of  which  they  complain. 

I  should  like  to  ask  the  gentleman  from  Littleton  whether 
or  not  the  resolution  which  he  has  offered  here  will  prevent 
the  organization  of  labor,  and  I  should  like  to  have  him 
answer  it  at  this  time  if  he  will. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  will  take  the  opportunity  in 
my  five  minutes. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — In  answer  to  the  assertion  of 
the  gentleman  from  Nashua,  Mr.  Hamblett,  that  there  is  no 
need  of  putting  this  amendment  into  the  Constitution,  I  de- 
sire to  call  the  attention  of  the  Convention  to  the  fact  that 
our  national  and  state  Constitutions  do  three  things.  First,, 
they  frame  a  form  of  government;  second,  they  announce 
principles  which  are  for  the  protection  of  the  people;  and, 
third,  they  command  the  legislatures  to  conform  to  those 
principles. 

Mr.  President,  the  Constitution  of  the  United  States  is  full 
of  the  enunciations  of  principles.  It  forbids  any  law  estab- 
lishing religion;  forbids  any  law  against  free  speech  or  a  free 
press;  forbids  any  law  against  the  right  of  petition  or  the  right 
of  the  people  to  bear  arms;  prohibits  the  quartering  of  sol- 
diers on  the  inhabitants,  except  in  time  of  war;  forbids  un- 
reasonable searches  and  seizures;  forbids  the  taking  away  of 
jury  trials;  it  enunciates  principles  against  unreasonable  bail 
and  unreasonable  punishments. 


712    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  New  Hampshire  Constitution  forbids  any  law  taking 
private  property  for  public  use  without  compensation  there- 
for; declares  against  the  trial  of  alleged  criminals  in  any  other 
Bounty  than  the  one  where  the  crime  was  committed;  declares 
against  unreasonable  searches  and  seizures;  against  quartering 
soldiers  on  the  inhabitants;  against  excessive  bail  and  fines, 
or  cruel  and  unusual  punishments;  against  loaning  money  on 
the  credit  of  the  state;  declares  against  pardons  before  con- 
viction; in  favor  of  trial  by  jury,  freedom  of  speech,  freedom 
of  assembling,  and  freedom  of  petition;  commands  the  legisla- 
ture of  the  state  to  promote  commerce,  and  so  on. 

Now,  Mr.  President,  the  constitutions  of  the  United  States 
and  of  this  state  demand  all  these  things,  and  yet  I  believe 
every  one  it  is  within  the  power  of  the  state  government  to 
enact,  without  the  express  demand  of  the  people  inserted  into 
the  Constitution.  The  object  of  the  Bill  of  Rights  and 
declarations  of  this  sort  is  to  declare  principles  and  to  com- 
mand legislatures  to  enforce  them,  and  that,  Mr.  President,  is 
what  we  want  to  do  here  and  now.  That  is,  we  want  to  de- 
clare the  principle  of  free  and  fair  competition  throughout 
the  length  and  breadth  of  the  state  and  to  command — not  to 
permit,  but  to  command  future  legislatures  to  enforce  that 
principle. 

Mr.  Howe  of  Concord — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention:  The  single  naked  question  is  a  question  of 
necessity.  Do  we  need  in  our  Constitution  the  amendment 
proposed?  I  am  not,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen,  a  stock- 
holder or  a  bondholder  in  any  trust;  I  do  not  ride  upon  the 
free  pass  of  any  trust;  I  do  not  send  my  telegrams  under  the 
frank  of  any  trust;  I  am  not  interested  in  any  manner  what- 
soever in  any  trust;  but  I  believe  that  we  have  in  our  Consti- 
tution everything  that  we  need  upon  this  subject,  and  that  it 
is  inadvisable  to  annex  to  our  Constitution  this  proposed 
amendment.  Our  duty  here  is  to  revise  the  Constitution  if  it 
needs  it;  not  otherwise.  It  is  important  to  see,  before  we 
make  any  amendment  of  our  Constitution,  whether  the  Con- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  713 

stitution  is  in  need  of  amendment.  We  are  not  here  to  defend 
trusts,  or  to  attack  trusts,  or  to  decide  whether  or  not  they  are 
an  evil,  but  simply  to  leave  our  Constitution,  when  we  are 
done  with  it,  in  the  best  shape  in  which  we  can  put  it. 

The  vital  question  is,  whether  there  is  not  enough  authority 
now  in  the  Constitution.  jSTo  gentleman  who  has  advocated 
this  amendment  has  claimed  that  there  is  not  ample  authority 
to  enable  the  legislature  to  enact  such  legislation  as  is  neces- 
sary for  the  control  of  trusts,  or  the  dissolution  of  trusts  if 
that  is  the  thing  best  calculated  to  further  the  interests  of  the 
state. 

If  the  gentlemen  who  think  some  action  upon  this  question 
should  be  taken  will  kindly  look  at  article  five,  part  two  of 
the  Constitution,  and  see  what  authority  the  legislature  has 
at  the  present  time.  That  article  reads  as  follows: 

"And,  further,  full  power  and  authority  are  hereby  given 
and  granted  to  the  said  general  court,  from  time  to  time,  to 
make,  ordain,  and  establish  all  manner  of  wholesome  and  rea- 
sonable orders,  laws,  statutes,  ordinances,  directions,  and  in- 
structions, either  with  penalties  or  without,  so  as  the  same  be 
not  repugnant  or  contrary  to  this  Constitution,  as  they  may 
judge  for  the  benefit  and  welfare  of  this  state  and  for  the  gov- 
erning and  ordering  thereof  and  of  the  subjects  of  the  same." 

Full  power  and  authority  the  legislature  already  has,  and, 
gentlemen,  what  more  than  full  power  can  you  give  to  the 
legislature?  When  they  have  that,  why  annex  to  the  Consti- 
tution an  amendment?  It  is  perfect  as  it  now  is.  Why, 
gentlemen, — and  this  is  the  point, — why  should  we  attach 
something  to  the  Constitution  which  is  unnecessary,  wholly 
unnecessary?  Have  n't  we  as  members  of  this  Convention 
already  enough  to  answer  for  without  sending  out  a  thing  of 
this  sort  to  the  people?  Now  the  only  argument  in  favor  of 
these  resolutions  against  trusts  would  apply  as  well  to  steal- 
ing. The  Constitution  gives  the  legislature  exactly  the  same 
authority  to  control  trusts  as  to  control  and  punish  stealing. 
Do  you  need  additional  authority  in  the  Constitution  for 
the  prevention  of  stealing?  You  need  exactly  the  same,  and 


714     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

no  more,  additional  authority  with  reference  to  the  control  of 
trusts. 

Mr.  Cullen  of  Portsmouth — I  wish  some  member  of  the 
legal  profession  here  in  the  Convention  would  answer  the 
question  already  asked — whether  or  not  there  is  anything  in 
this  proposed  amendment  that  will  affect  the  right  of  trades 
unions. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord — It  may  be  as  suggested,  that  the 
broad  terms  of  article  five  of  part  second  of  the  Constitution 
includes  power  to  secure  the  object  .sought  to  be  accomplished 
by  this  resolution.  But  this  declaration  is  one  I  believe  in  a& 
a  declaration  of  principles.  If  the  existing  industrial  troubles 
or  conditions  existed  at  the  time  the  Constitution  was  orig- 
inally adopted,  a  provision,  or  declaration,  similar  to  this 
would  have  been  added,  I  believe.  While  this  may  be  as  sug- 
gested, covered  by  the  general  declaration  of  that  article,  yet, 
a  specific,  positive,  unmistakable  declaration  of  the  people  of 
this  state,  at  this  time,  that  there  should  be  fair  and  free  com- 
petition in  the  trades  and  industries,  and  that  the  legislature 
be  further  authorized  to  employ  such  additional  power  as  may 
be  necessary  to  secure  that  result,  will  be  advantageous  and 
wholesome. 

In  answer  to  the  question  of  the  gentlemen  from  Nashua, 
Mr.  Hamblett,  and  the  gentleman  from  Portsmouth,  Mr.  Cul- 
len, with  reference  to  whether  this  prohibits  trades  unions,  I 
would  say,  in  my  opinion,  it  does  not.  If  it  did,  I  certainly 
would  vote  against  it.  I  believe  trades  unions  are  essential  to 
the  protection,  the  welfare,  and  the  improvement  of  the  work- 
ingmen,  and  there  should  be  nothing  in  this  declaration 
of  rights  which  will  impair  it  or  in  the  least  degree  modify  the 
right  that  now  exists.  Never  should  there  be  anything  to 
prevent  the  organization  of  labor,  an  instrumentality  which 
has  accomplished  so  much  for  the  benefit  of  both  labor  and 
capital. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  715 

I  trust,  Mr.  President  and  gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
that  this  resolution  will  pass  unanimously. 

Mr.  Cross  of  Manchester — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen: 
Show  your  colors.  Which  side  are  you  on?  Are  you  for  the 
trusts?  Are  you  for  free  and  open  competition?  Are  you  for 
upholding  Roosevelt  in  his  struggle  with  the  money  power  in 
this  land?  Did  you  read  in  the  Advertiser  of  Boston  yester- 
day that  account  of  the  "beef  trust — the  conservative  Adver- 
tiser says  that  a  beef  trust  is  formed  which  will  control  the 
food,  at  least  the  beef,  of  an  hundred  and  fifty  millions  of 
people — people  of  this  country,  people  of  Great  Britain,  of 
Germany,  and  of  all  Europe.  It  is  already  formed,  and  unless 
some  power  shall  prevent,  the  beef  trust  will  raise  prices  of 
meat  from  ten  to  thirty  or  forty  per  cent.  When  this  struggle 
is  going  on,  when  from  the  East  to  the  West  the  people  of  this 
country  are  looking  about  to  see  what  the  sentiment  of  New 
Hampshire  on  this  subject  is,  shall  we  say  we  don't  know  any- 
thing about  it,  we  think  there  is  enough  in  the  Constitution 
to  protect  us,  we  do  not  care  to  utter  our  sentiments,  we  do 
not  dare  raise  our  hands  to  help  in  this  work?  In  my  view, 
this  is  one  of  the  most  important  questions  that  has  ever  come 
before  the  American  people.  It  is  a  struggle  for  national  life, 
and  what  shall  we  do  or  attempt  to  do?  Whether  there  is 
anything  in  the  Constitution  giving  the  legislature  sufficient 
power  to  control  trusts  or  not  I  do  not  care.  I  know  this 
question  is  now  before  me,  and  as  a  legislator  I  must  give  my 
vote  and  my  voice  in  favor  of  this  resolution. 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — Mr  Chairman,  I  am  very  glad 
that  we  have  heard  the  grounds  of  the  opposition  of  the  two 
gentlemen  who  have  spoken  against  this  proposition  to  amend 
the  Constitution.  At  the  time  the  declaration,  to  which  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Howe,  has  referred,  was  put 
into  the  Constitution  what  we  now  call  trusts  were  not  known. 
The  resolution  before  us  to-day  is  directed  against  present 
monopolies,  against  new  creations,  and  in  the  presence  of  such 


716    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

conditions  of  monopoly  we  need  to  be  more  specific.  The 
old  declaration  is  general  in  its  terms.  What  was  taught  in 
the  early  days  should  be  now  declared  more  specifically  and 
more  emphatically  than  before.  A  declaration  should  be  ex- 
pressly directed  against  existing  evils. 

Now,  with  respect  to  the  query  of  the  gentleman  from 
Nashua,  Mr.  Hamblett,  as  to  whether  this  hits  labor  unions. 
This  proposition  is  not  directed  against  labor  unions.  The 
resolutions  were  referred  to  the  committee  after  a  vote  of  this 
Convention,  with  only  two  dissenting  voices,  and  on  that  com- 
mittee were  such  distinguished  lawyers  as  the  gentleman  from 
Manchester,  the  Honorable  James  F.  Briggs;  the  distin- 
guished gentleman  from  Franklin,  Mr.  Sanborn;  the  gentle- 
man from  Exeter,  Mr.  Fuller;  the  gentleman  from  Claremont, 
Mr.  Colby,  and  others.  The  committee  undertook,  upon  the 
recommendation  of  the  Convention,  to  draft  a  resolution 
which  should  direct  itself  against  trusts,  not  against  labor, 
and  there  was  no  purpose  to  direct  the  resolution  against 
labor  unions,  or  against  labor.  The  purpose  is  to  restore  equi- 
librium, as  far  as  may  be  and  as  far  as  New  Hampshire  influ- 
ence goes,  in  the  industrial  and  commercial  conditions  in  this 
country,  and  this  would  help  to  make  labor  unions  and  strikes 
unnecessary;  it  would  help  to  protect  labor.  I  think  it  per- 
fectly clear  that  what  is  proposed  to  be  done,  through  the 
amendment,  is  to  declare  it  unlawful  for  combinations,  con- 
spiracies, and  monopolies,  by  unfair  means,  to  raise  prices  in 
the  trades  and  industries. 

Now,  let  me  ask  gentlemen  on  this  floor  whether  labor 
unions  are  created  for  the  purpose  of  raising  the  price  of  com- 
modities. 

I  hope  the  proposed  amendment  will  be  adopted  unani- 
mously. 

Mr.  Sanborn  of  Franklin — Inasmuch  as  the  distinguished 
gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  has  alluded  to  me  as 
being  on  the  committee,  I  wish  to  disclaim  all  thought  in  re- 
gard to  the  union  of  labor.  That  matter  was  not  at  all  sug- 
gested. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  717 

I  did  not  suppose  that  by  this  declaration  we  should  bring 
about  an  Elysium  in  New  Hampshire,  but  I  thought  possibly 
it  might  give  a  little  lift  to  the  strenuous  president  and  help 
him  bring  his  party  into  line  so  as  to  take  the  tariff  off  from 
coal. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  called  for  a  division. 

The  division  resulted  in  313  gentleman  voting  in  the  affirm- 
ative and  2  gentlemen  voting  in  the  negative,  and  the  resolu- 
tion of  the  committee  was  adopted  and  the  amendment  re- 
ferred to  the  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to 
the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

The  following  resolutions,  previously  adopted  by  the  Con- 
vention, were  referred  to  the  same  committee:  That  of  Mr. 
Morris  of  Lisbon,  to  extend  jurisdiction  of  police  courts;  Mr. 
Russell  of  Plymouth,  military;  Mr.  Norris  of  Portsmouth, 
taxation. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Stockwell  of  Claremont,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 

AFTERNOON. 

The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Stone  of  Andover,  the  resolution  offered 
by  that  gentleman  in  relation  to  the  supreme  and  superior 
courts  was  indefinitely  postponed. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester — I  wish  to  make  a  motion  in 
regard  to  the  resolution  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  with  reference 
to  voting  precincts  in  the  large  cities  and  towns.  Early  in  the 
session  the  gentleman  from  Bow,  Mr.  Baker,  introduced  a 
resolution  which  was  referred  to  a  committee  and  reported 
back  to  the  house  and  adopted.  Now,  in  the  interests  of  all 


718    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

parties,  I  desire  to  make  a  motion  that  the  amendment  be  re- 
called from  the  Committee  on  Time  and  Mcde  of  Submitting 
to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention, 
where  it  now  is,  in  order  that  amendment  may  be  made  to  it 
here,  or  that  it  be  referred  to  some  committee  who  can  report 
it  in  an  amended  form.  I  move  that  the  resolution  be  recalled 
from  the  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the 
People  the  Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

The  motion  being  stated  by  the  chair,  was  carried  on  a  viva 
voce  vote. 

Mr.  Gilmore  of  Manchester — I  move  that  the  vote  by  which 
this  resolution  was  passed  be  reconsidered. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow — It  seems  to  me  I  ought  to  make  a  little 
explanation  with  reference  to  this  matter.  The  gentleman 
from  Manchester  has  been  a  moderator  and  has  had  great  ex- 
perience in  the  details  of  election.  This  amendment  of  mine 
was  prepared  solely  with  the  view  of  accommodating  the  elec- 
tors, and  I  had  no  thought  at  the  time  of  counting  the  ballots 
after  they  were  cast.  The  Constitution  as  it  now  exists  pro- 
vides that  the  votes  shall  be  counted  in  the  presence  of  the 
moderator  and  .selectmen  and  other  officers.  Of  course  if  this 
should  remain  as  it  is,  all  the  ballots  cast  at  the  different  pre- 
cincts would  have  to  be  taken  to  one  place  and  counted  so 
that  the  officers  specified  could  be  present.  The  purpose  of 
the  gentleman  from  Manchester,  as  I  understand  it,  is  not  in 
any  way  hostile  to  the  amendment,  but  he  desires  that  it 
should  be  so  amended  that  provision  can  be  made  for  the 
counting  of  the  ballots  at  the  precincts  where  they  are  cast. 
It  is  with  no  hostility  toward  the  general  purpose,  but  only  for 
the  purpose  of  perfecting  the  details. 

The  motion  to  reconsider  was  adopted  and  the  resolution 
recommitted  to  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative  Depart- 
ment. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester,  the  resolution  of- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  719 

fered  by  Mr.  Starr  of  Manchester  to  amend  article  sixty-six, 
part  two  of  the  Constitution,  relating  to  secretary  of  state, 
state  treasurer,  labor  commissioner,  and  railroad  commis- 
sioners, and  to  provide  for  their  election  by  the  people,  was 
indefinitely  postponed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster,  the  resolution  offered 
by  Mr.  Foster  of  Concord,  relating  to  pensions,  was  recalled 
from  the  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the 
People  the  Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention. 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  vote  whereby  the 
above  resolution  passed  the  Convention  was  reconsidered. 

The  resolution  was  then  laid  upon  the  table. 

Mr.  Howard  of  Portsmouth,  from  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  several 
amendments  to  article  twenty-five  of  part  second  of  the  Con- 
stitution, relative  to  the  increase  of  the  membership  of  the 
senate,  offered  by  Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham,  Mr.  Baker  of 
Bow,  Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton,  and  Mr.  Blake  of  Fitzwilliam, 
reported  them  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution 
in  this  respect," 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question,  upon  the  adoption  of  the  resolution. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  consideration  of  the  reso- 
lution of  the  committee  was  postponed  until  after  the  disposal 
of  the  special  order  assigned  for  this  time. 

The  special  order  was  called  for,  it  being  the  report  of  the 
majority  and  minority  respectively  of  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department  with  reference  to  the  various  resolu- 
tions before  them  relating  to  the  subject  of  representation. 


720     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  question  was  upon  the  motion  of  Mr.  Scott  of  Peter- 
borough, that  the  minority  report  be  substituted  for  that  of 
the  majority. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough — I  made  the  motion  to  substi- 
tute the  minority  report  for  the  majority,  and  of  course  I  feel 
called  upon  to  say  something  in  relation  to  the  motion  and  its 
object. 

I  am  very  glad,  gentlemen,  that  we  have  approached  that 
time  when  it  seems  as  though  this  vexed  question  which  has 
taken  so  much  of  the  time  of  this  Convention  is  about  to  be 
settled.  I  know  you  all  feel  as  I  do,  and  I  shall  not  take  much 
of  your  time,  and  I  could  not  if  I  would  under  the  rule  which 
has  been  adopted,  nor  do  I  feel  physically  equal  to  doing  so. 

I  made  this  motion  of  substitution  because  it  seemed  to  me 
it  would  bring  us  directly  to  the  issue.  If  this  Convention  is 
of  the  same  mind  that  it  was  when  it  considered  this  matter  in 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  the  minority  report  will  be  sub- 
stituted for  that  of  the  majority,  as  the  Convention  practically 
adopted  the  proposition  which  was  submitted  in  the  report  of 
the  minority.  If  you  vote  down  my  motion  to  substitute  the 
minority  for  the  majority  report,  then  you  are  reversing  your 
action  of  the  other  day. 

The  only  question,  as  it  seems  to  me,  which  presents  itself 
to  the  Convention  at  this  time  is  whether  or  not  the  basis  of 
representation  in  future  shall  be  upon  the  basis  of  600  for  the 
first  and  1,800  for  the  second  representative,  or  800  for  the 
first  and  1,600  for  the  second.  That  seems  to  me  to  be  the 
important  question  that  confronts  us  under  this  motion.  And 
I  think  we  can  arrive  at  it  in  this  way  quicker  than  in  any 
other. 

Since  this  matter  was  fully  discussed  before  this  Conven- 
tion I  have  taken  much  pains  to  satisfy  myself  of  the  feeling 
of  my  constituents  and  of  the  people  in  the  vicinity  in  which 
I  live,  and  I  have  been  assured  in  every  single  instance  by 
members  of  both  political  parties  that  any  other  method  while 
the  town  system  obtains  than  the  600  for  the  first  representa- 
tive would  be  voted  down  as  surely  as  submitted  to  the  people. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  721. 

Now,,  with  reference  to  the  basis  of  1,800  for  the  second 
representative.  You  will  remember  that  the  resolution  of  the 
gentleman  from  Newport,  Mr.  Barton,  was  that  the  second  rep- 
resentative should  be  elected  on  a  basis  of  2,000.  Now  why 
has  it  been  cut  down  to  1,800?  Because  there  was  complaint 
by  the  representatives  of  the  cities  and  the  larger  towns  that 
it  took  too  many  representatives  from  them,  and  we  have  con- 
sented universally,  so  far  as  I  know,  to  drop  the  basis  for  the 
second  representative  from  2,000  to  1,800,  which  will  rein- 
state nine  representatives.  The  city  of  Manchester  will  gain 
two — Ward  One  and  Ward  Ten,  one  each;  the  city  of  Nashua 
will  gain  one,  the  town  of  Claremont  will  gain  one,  and  the 
city  of  Berlin  will  gain  one  of  its  representatives.  None  of 
these  come  from  the  smaller  towns. 

Gentlemen,  we  have  tried  to  approach  this  matter  in  a  spirit 
of  fairness.  Everybody  knows  the  disadvantages  under  which 
the  small  towns  in  the  state  labor,  and  all  we  ask  in  this  mat- 
ter— and  we  ask  it  in  a  spirit  of  broad  liberality  and  charity 
towards  the  small  towns  of  this  state  on  the  part  of  this  Con- 
vention— is  that  the  principles  of  representation  should  be 
applied  to  the  towns  of  this  state  as  are  applied  by  the  govern- 
ment of  the  United  States  in  dealing  with  the  various  states. 
Can  we  not  afford  to  be  as  charitable  towards  them,  the  little 
towns,  as  the  general  government  is  towards  the  little  state 
of  New  Hampshire  in  allowing  her  equal  representation  in  the 
United  States  senate  with  New  York  and  the  other  powerful 
and  popular  states  of  the  Union? 

I  say,  gentlemen,  we  are  not  asking  too  much.  How  do  we 
leave  some  of  the  larger  towns  and  cities  by  this  minority  re- 
port? Take  Manchester,  for  instance,  which  now  has  a  repre- 
sentation of  forty-nine.  The  minority  report  will  leave  her 
with  thirty-three  representatives,  which  will  then  have  two 
representatives  more  than  all  the  rest  of  Hillsborough  county. 
Ts  that  a  hardship  for  the  city  of  Manchester?  The  same  pro- 
portion also  will  apply  to  the  other  cities  of  the  state.  I  say 
that  the  minority  of  the  committee  have  asked  nothing  out 
of  the  way,  and  that  their  report  should  be  substituted  for 
that  of  the  majority. 
46 


722     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Pike  of  Haverhill — I  was  intending  to  offer  an  amend- 
ment to  the  majority  report,  but  since  the  minority  report 
has  been  offered  as  a  substitute  I  am  willing  to  endorse  that. 
I  am  sorry  that  the  majority  of  the  committee  were  not  broad 
and  not  fair  enough  to  bring  into  the  Convention  a  resolution 
which  should  express  the  wishes  of  the  Convention. 

I  do  not  agree  with  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lam- 
£>rey,  that  this  report  of  the  majority  is  a  fair  one. 

Mr.  Wason  of  Nashua — Gentlemen  of  the  Convention:  I 
suppose  that  each  and  every  one  of  us  during  the  few  days  we 
have  been  in  session  have  been  trying  to  treat  each  subject 
fairly  and  squarely  and  to  arrive  at  the  best  results  for  the 
benefit  of  all  in  approaching  and  considering  this  question. 
I  assure  you  that  while  I  come  from  the  second  city  of  the 
state,  I  recognize  the  right  of  the  small  towns  as  well  as  the 
rich  cities,  and  in  arriving  at  a  conclusion  on  this  subject  I 
trust  that  you  will  bear  with  me  and  believe  that  I  am  fair  in 
my  views  although  they  do  not  agree  with  those  of  each  and 
every  one  of  you. 

Now,  then,  what  is  all  this  smoke  about?  "What  is  the  issue 
and  why  the  contest  that  has  engaged  us  practically  for  the 
last  ten  days?  To  put  it  in  plain  English,  fairly  and  squarely, 
what  is  it?  It  is  whether  or  not  the  Convention  here  assem- 
bled shall  submit  to  the  people  a  proposition  pro-rating  forty- 
two  towns  more  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire.  Forty-tw® 
towns  are  all  that  is  in  issue.  The  principle  has  been  settled, 
and  you  know  I  voted  with  you  for  that.  I  believe  in  the  town 
system  for  the  present,  as  against  the  district.  I  ask  you  if 
there  is  a  man  here  that  believes  that  the  house  of  representa- 
tives should  not  be  reduced,  and  if  it  should  be  reduced  should 
not  it  be  reduced  fairly  as  the  Constitution  provides?  If  that 
is  true,  the  gentlemen  who  are  here,  both  those  from  the  cities 
and  from  the  towns,  must  look  at  this  question  in  a  fair  and 
impartial  way. 

This,  as  I  have  said,  is  the  question  of  forty-two  towns.  I 
have  the  names  of  the  towns  in  iny  pocket,  but  the  time  is  so 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  723 

limited  I  will  not  attempt  to  enumerate  them.  There  are 
forty-two,  and  only  forty-two  which  are  affected.  Is  it  a  rank 
proposition  to  submit  to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire  that 
forty-two  additional  towns  should  be  pro-rated  when  for 
thirty  years  sixty-nine  towns  in  the  old  state  have  been  pro- 
rated? Is  it  a  departure  from  the  footsteps  of  our  fathers? 
No.  It  is  the  same  step  we  have  taken  and  the  same  principle 
under  which  we  have  lived  since  1876.  Eight  hundred  for 
the  first  representative  and  1,600  for  the  mean  increasing 
ratio  is  the  same  proposition  as  600  for  the  first  and  1,200  for 
the  mean  increasing  ratio.  It  has  worked  well  and  fairly  for 
twenty-six  years  and  there  was  no  complaint  from  anybody 
with  reference  to  it. 

The  gentleman  from  Peterborough,  Mr.  Scott,  represents 
one  of  the  largest  towns  in  our  county,  and  he  believes  in  giv- 
ing these  little  towns  the  right  of  representation.  If  you 
carry  his  principle  and  theory  to  its  logical  results  you  would 
have  to  cut  down  the  basis  of  representation  for  the  first  rep- 
resentative to  300.  So  the  little  town  of  Temple  that  my 
friend  Hadley  represents  could  have  a  representative  all  the 
time.  That  is  the  proposition.  If  you  are  going  to  make 
600  an  arbitrary  number  for  the  first  representative,  why 
t-hould  you  not  go  a  step  farther  and  protect  the  small  towns 
of  even  a  less  number  of  inhabitants  than  that.  To  be  fair 
upon  the  principles  upheld  by  the  gentleman  from  Peterbor- 
ough, and  by  others  pleading  for  the  small  towns,  you  would 
have  to-  take  such  a  course  as  that. 

Let  us  decide  to  submit  something  here  that  the  voters  in 
the  cities  will  vote  for  and  that  the  voters  in  the  towns  will 
vote  for.  Then  we  have  discharged  our  duty,  and  have  acted 
fairly  with  ourselves  and  have  acted  fairly  according  to  our 
Cfm  judgment.  I  believe  if  we  adopt  the  report  of  the  ma- 
f&rity  of  the  committee  that  it  will  be  doing  just  that  and  will 
be  carrying  forward  the  principles  that  actuated  our  prede- 
cessors and  under  which  we  have  lived  and  prospered  for  the 
last  quarter  of  a  century.  My  friend  from  Peterborough,  Mr. 
Scott,  says  that  it  will  not  be  adopted.  Let  it  be  so.  We  have 


724    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

as  many  votes  in  Nashua  for  as  they  have  in  the  town  of 
Peterborough  against  this  proposition. 

Mr.  Shute  of  Wentworth — Perhaps  it  is  presumption  for 
me  to  come  down  here  in  front  but  I  like  to  look  the  people 
in  the  face. 

Some  of  the  gentlemen  who  have  spoken  remind  me  of 
Josh  Billings,  who  in  the  time  of  the  war  was  willing  to  sacri- 
fice all  his  wife's  relations  to  carry  on  the  war.  Sixty-nine 
towns  have  already  been  sacrificed.  But  that  is  nothing. 
That  is  in  the  spirit  of  fairness.  Gentlemen,  is  that  so?  No, 
unless  the  spirit  of  annihilation  is  fairness.  This  is  the  spirit 
of  annihilation  and  nothing  else. 

One  time  when  I  was  a  boy  I  read  a  Russian  story  where 
a  peasant  woman  loaded  herself  and  children  in  one  of  those 
sleigh  vehicles  peculiar  to  the  country,  and  started  for  an  ad- 
joining village.  She  had  to  go  through  a  large  stretch  of 
woods  where  the  wolves  were  thick.  In  going  through  a  pack 
of  wolves  came  upon  her.  She  sent  her  pony  away  on  a  run, 
but  they  gained  upon  her,  and  finally  they  jumped  on  to  the 
sleigh  and  to  save  herself  she  threw  off  one  of  her  babies  to 
the  wolves.  The  baby  was  soon  devoured,  and  the  wolves, 
more  ravenous  than  ever,  still  followed  and  rushed  on  to  the 
sleigh  and  grabbed  at  the  robes,  and  she  threw  another  baby 
out  to  them,  and  still  went  on.  This  was  repeated  until  every 
baby  was  thrown  to  the  wolves.  When,  alone  and  childless, 
she  arrived  at  her  destination,  she  told  what  she  had  done  to  a 
woodchopper,  who  felled  her  in  death  with  his  axe — a  de- 
served fate. 

We  have  thrown  over  sixty-nine  children  already — sixty- 
nine  commonwealths,  and  the  Josh  Billingses  present  ask  us 
to  throw  over  forty-two  more.  I  want  to  tell  you,  gentlemen, 
that  is  not  the  end.  The  next  Constitutional  Convention  will 
have  another  Josh  Billings,  and  pretty  soon  every  little  com- 
monwealth of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  will  all  be  thrown 
over  to  the  wolves  of  the  cities,  and  the  farming  communities 
will  have  no  more  voice  in  the  affairs  of  government. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  725 

Mr.  Chase  of  Bristol — I  assume  when  the  gentlemen  of  this 
Convention  assembled  we  came  here  with  the  understanding 
that  it  was  desirable  and  necessary  in  some  way  to  reduce  the 
house  of  representatives,  and  I  assume  each  came  here  with 
the  idea  that  we  should  endeavor  to  reduce  it  in  some  equita- 
ble and  just  manner. 

We  seemed  to  have  been  forced  into  a  series  of  votes  the 
other  day  whereby  we  adopted  the  number  of  300  for  one 
limit  and  the  number  280  for  the  other  limit  with  reference 
to  the  size  of  the  house.  We  also  took  a.  series  of  votes  where- 
by we  arrived  at  the  basic  number  of  600  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative. I  was  one  who  voted  for  the  600,  but  I  did  not 
understand  then,  and  do  not  now,  that  those  votes  were  more 
than  merely  declaratory  of  our  views  at  the  time,  coming  as 
they  did  with  the  vote  taken  in  the  way  it  was. 

Now  the  present  increasing  mean  is  1,200,  and  the  present 
basic  number  is  GOO,  and  it  seems  to  me  the  fairest  and  most 
equitable  basis  on  which  we  can  place  this  matter  is  that  pro- 
posed by  the  majority  committee.  They  would  increase  the 
basic  number  from  GOO  to  800,  and  would  increase  the  in- 
creasing mean  from  1,200  to  1,600.  Now  we  desire  to  sub- 
mit something  to  the  people,  and  we  desire  to  submit  some- 
thing which  they  will  approve,  and  I  believe  from  what  I 
have  talked  with  the  members  here,  and  from  the  general  sen- 
timent of  the  community  with  which  I  am  acquainted,  that 
the  proposal  of  the  majority  of  this  committee  will  come  more 
nearly  to  meeting  the  wishes  of  the  people  than  that  of  the 
minority. 

Mr.  Woodbury  of  Woodstock — Mr.  President  and  gentle- 
men of  the  Convention:  I  have  but  a  few  words  to  say,  be- 
cause this  very  important  matter  has  been  pretty  well  talked 
oait  already.  I  do  not  think  anything  I  can  say  or  anything 
that  any  one  else  can  say  will  change  the  mind  of  any  one  in 
regard  to  the  subject. 

I  was  one  of  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department, 
and  when  this  question  came  before  us  with  the  recommenda- 


726    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

tion  so  overwhelmingly  in  favor  O'f  the  town  system,  and  a 
recommendation  of  102  majority  in  favor  of  the  600  basis,  I 
could  not  see  it  my  duty  to  go  behind  that  recommendation, 
backed  by  such  a  vote,  and  make  such  a  radical  departure 
from  the  wishes  of  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  as  has  been 
reported  by  the  majority  of  the  Committee  on  the  Legislative 
Department.  I  do  not  believe,  gentlemen  of  the  Convention, 
that  the  time  has  come  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  when 
in  order  to  reduce  our  majority  we  should  go  to  work  and  dis- 
franchise forty-three  more  towns  practically.  By  the  report 
of  the  majority  of  the  committee  we  disfranchise  forty-three 
more  towns  one  fourth  of  the  time,  and  we  disfranchise  sixty- 
eight  or  nine  towns  on  the  average  three  fourths  of  the  time 
—we  are  going  to  disfranchise  something  like  26,000  people 
who  are  now  represented  part  of  the  time  in  the  legislature. 
Now,  gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I  wish  to  ask  this.  Can 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire  afford  to  do  this?  Cannot  our 
cities  afford  to  lose  some  representation,  cannot  they  afford  to 
lose  the  small  representation  which  has  been  figured  out 
better  than  to  have  our  little,  small,  struggling  republics  back 
on  the  hills  lose  the  last  representative  they  have?  I  ask  you 
this  question  in  all  fairness  and  candor. 

I  have  done  a  little  figuring  in  regard  to  this  matter,  and 
I  find  that  under  the  proposition  of  the  minority,  twenty-one 
towns  of  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  concede  half  of  their 
representatives.  And  yet  the  delegates  of  those  towns  are 
perfectly  willing  to  do  that  in  order  to  get  a  reduction  of  the 
house  of  representatives,  and  seven  towns  of  the  state  con- 
cede one  third  of  their  representatives  in  order  to  reduce  the 
house  to  325.  Under  the  minority  report  the  city  of  Con- 
cord will  have  thirteen  or  fourteen  representatives,  the  city  of 
Nashua  will  have  about  the  same  number,  and  the  city  of 
Manchester  will  have  about  thirty-four.  If  this  resolution  of 
the  minority  can  be  carried  out,  the  house  will  remain  at 
about  the  figure  of  325  until  after  the  next  census,  and  it  has 
been  conceded  on  the  part  of  all  delgates  that  when  the  next 
census  is  taken  the  country  towns  will  be  still  smaller  and 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  727 

they  will  have  less  number  of  representatives  in  the  legisla- 
ture while  those  of  the  cities  will  be  more. 

I  do  not  believe  we  should  go  to  work  and  make  111  pro- 
rated towns,  and  disfranchise  the  inhabitants  of  those  towns. 
We  should  recognize  their  individuality  as  townships  in  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire  by  granting  them  equal  rights  in  the 
halls  of  legislation. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen: 
The  wolves  live  in  the  country  towns.  There  are  no  wolves 
in  the  cities.  Perfect  equality  will  be  the  district  system. 
Perfect  equality  under  the  town  system,  as  I  said  the  other 
day,  would  make  this  house  666  members.  Two  hundred  and 
sixty-six  town  and  city  babies  have  been  already  destroyed  by 
the  country  wolves.  Now,  Mr.  President,  we  are  as  much  at- 
tached to  our  babies  in  the  city  as  they  are  to  their  babies  in 
the  country.  The  proposition  now  is  that  we  shall  deliver 
100  more  of  our  babies  to  be  devoured  by  the  wolves  of  the 
gentleman  from  Wentworth. 

Mr.  President,  I  wish  to  treat  this  matter  seriously.  We 
have  now  come,  in  the  last  hour,  to  the  critical  contest  of  this 
Convention.  I  can  only  repeat  what  I  have  already  said,  that 
a  reduction  of  the  house  cannot  be  made  by  entirely  cutting 
from  the  large  towns  and  the  cities.  The  people  would  not 
adopt  that  proposition  if  we  should  unanimously  ask  them  to 
do  it.  If  this  proposition  for  reducing  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives by  taking  100  members  from  the  towns  and  wards 
which  now  have  more  than  one  representative  is  sent  to  the 
people  it  will  be  defeated.  I  also  know  that  any  proposition 
sent  to  the  people  which  the  country  towns  are  against  can  be 
defeated,  because  the  country  towns  and  their  friends  from 
the  cities  who  have  come  here  in  their  behalf  can  command 
more  than  two  thirds  of  the  votes  of  the  state.  So  here  we 
are  in  trouble.  I  believe  that  our  friends  from  the  country 
towns  should  accept  800  and  1,600,  because  that  reduces  the 
house  without  increasing  the  inequality.  Under  the  existing 
conditions  you  cannot  increase  that  inequality  and  you  can- 


728    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

not  diminish  it,  and  that  fact  would  seem  to  settle  our  duty, 
and  the  only  way  that  seems  to  be  possible  to  reduce  the 
house  of  representativs  is  to  reduce  it  on  the  lines  reported  by 
the  majority  of  the  committee.  If  that  can  be  done,  I  think 
we  can  secure  the  adoption  of  that  proposition  by  the  people 
and  then  the  question  will  be  set  at  rest  during  the  lives  of 
most  of  us  here  present. 

Mr.  Harmon  of  Effingham — There  is,  Mr.  President  and 
gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  one  statement  in  the  majority 
report  that  I  heartily  agree  with,  and  that  is  that  the  only 
equitable  method  is  that  secured  by  the  district  system.  You 
will  recall  that  I  introduced  such  a  measure,  and  it  was  in- 
gloriously  defeated,  and  I  have  no  strength  to  wage  lost  bat- 
tles over,  but  the  friends  of  the  town  system  all  come  to  me, 
and  many  of  them  prime  movers,  and  state  that  the  reason  that 
they  voted  against  it  and  it  was  defeated  was  upon  the  prin- 
ciple that  the  towns  should  be  represented.  Now,  then,  I 
accept  my  defeat.  I  bow  gracefully  to  it,  but  in  the  name  of 
consistency,  if  our  measure  is  to  be  defeated  on  this  ground, 
why  not  give  the  little  towns  the  representation  that  is 
claimed  for  them. 

There  is  a  story  that  one  legal  gentleman  of  our  country — 
a  very  bright  man — was  one  day  conferring  in  his  office  with 
the  friend  of  a  deceased  gentleman  who  was  very  wealthy,  but 
very  unscrupulous.  He  had  amassed  a  great  deal  of  property 
by  means  not  approved  by  the  majority  of  the  people.  Some 
one  said  to  him,  "Can  you  tell  me  how  much  the  deceased 
left?"  "Not  precisely,"  said  the  lawyer,  "but  I  have  heard  a 
report  that  he  left  all  he  had."  Gentlemen,  that  is  exactly 
what  the  little  towns  have  to  do  under  the  proposed  appor- 
tionment. You  rob  us  of  the  district  system  of  perfect  equal- 
ity, and  then  you  ask  the  towns  of  800  or  less  to  leave  all  they 
have.  We,  unlike  the  Eussian  mother  referred  to,  have 
only  one  child  to  sacrifice  and  you  ask  us  to  lay  that  on  the 
altar  of  favoritism  and  injustice.  I  hope  if  we  adopt  the  town 
system  it  will  be  that  approved  by  the  minority. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  729 

Mr.  Hadley  of  Temple — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen  of 
the  Convention:  I  signed  the  minority  report,  and  of  course 
I  stand  here  as  an  advocate  of  the  principles  therein  con- 
tained. I  think  that  600  for  the  first  unit  and  1,800  for  the 
second  is  not  asking  too  much  from  the  larger  towns.  We 
have  heard  a  good  deal  ahout  the  inequality  of  asking  this, 
but  when  we  stop  and  think  that  there  was  inequality  forced 
upon  the  people  of  the  state  in  1876  when  the  basis  was 
changed  from  ratable  polls  to  population,  we  see  there  is 
where  inequality  began.  If  we  should  go  back  to  the  basis  of 
ratable  polls,  then  the  proportion  of  one  to  three  as  recom- 
mended in  the  report  of  the  minority  might  be  inequitable, 
but  I  claim  that  on  the  basis  of  population  the  proportion  of 
one  to  two,  that  is  600  for  the  first  representative  and  1,200 
for  the  second,  as  we  now  have  it,  or  800  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative and  1,600  for  the  second,  as  recommended  in  the 
report  of  the  majority,  is  inequitable,  and  that  the  basis  of  600 
for  the  first  and  1,800  for  the  second,  as  recommended  in  the 
report  of  the  minority,  comes  nearer  to  equality.  I  claim  that 
for  this  reason,  because  the  cities  and  large  towns  of  the  state 
have  a  larger  proportion  of  non-voting  population  than  the 
small  towns.  In  the  small  towns  I  undersand  that  the  ratio 
of  the  voters  to  the  population  is  about  one  to  three,  while  in 
the  city  of  Manchester  it  is  only  about  one  to  seven.  I  think 
it  is  nothing  more  than  fair  for  us  to  ask  you  to  grant  us  this 
concession,  if  you  so  consider  it — we  consider  that  we  have 
made  a  concession  to  you  in  cutting  down  the  number  for  the 
second  representative  from  2,000  to  1,800.  I  hope  that  this 
Convention  will  adopt  the  minority  report,  and  not  only  that, 
but  that  we  shall  go  out  in  all  spirit  of  fairness  and  try  to 
have  the  people  adopt  the  resolution  sent  to  them,  and  en- 
deavor not  to  have  the  work  of  the  Convention  go  for 
nothing. 

Mr.  Lord  of  Manchester — I  want  to  call  attention  to  one 
statement  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Woodstock,  Mr. 
Woodbury,  who  stated  that  on  the  basis  of  800  and  1,600 


730    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

there  would  be  about  forty-three  towns  disfranchised,  which 
would  include  about  26,000  people.  Well,  at  Manchester,  on 
his  proposition  of  600  and  1,800 — in  that  city  alone,  his  prop- 
osition will  disfranchise  19,600.  I  do  not  know  about  the 
other  cities,  but  I  think  we  can  say  that  there  are  almost  as 
many  if  not  more  people  disfranchised  under  his  bill  than 
under  the  resolution  reported  by  the  majority  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

It  has  been  said  that  the  representation  is  to  be  based  on 
population.  If  you  want  to  change  the  basis  change  it.  If 
you  keep  as  a  basis  population,  make  your  arguments  on 
population.  Don't  make  your  representation  on  population, 
and  come  here  and  argue  on  ratable  polls. 

Now,  gentlemen,  you  people  come  here  and  say  that  when 
you  take  away  sixteen  or  eighteen  representatives  from  the 
city  of  Manchester  and  hold  on  to  every  representative  you 
have  in  the  small  towns  you  are  treating  us  in  a  spirit  of  fair- 
ness. It  may  seem  fair  to  you  but  to  me  it  does  not  seem  fair 
to  take  everything  and  give  nothing.  You  can  pull  me  out 
into  the  street  by  force  and  turn  the  hose  on  me,  but  cannot 
make  me  believe  it  is  fair  treatment. 

Mr.  dough  of  Nashua — I  have  figures  here  that  were  pre- 
sented a  number  of  days  ago  showing  that  the  surplus  popula- 
tion not  represented  is  74,000.  I  believe  that  it  was  so  stated. 
I  think  the  population  of  the  towns  which  were  not  repre- 
sented was  stated  as  about  34,000.  I  think  that  is  right,  but 
I  have  not  attempted  to  prove  it. 

It  seems  to  me  in  considering  this  question  here,  it  is  not  a 
question  wholly  of  cities  against  towns,  but  of  cities  and  large 
towns  against  the  small  towns.  If  it  is  put  upon  that  basis  it 
will  be  found  that  the  cities  and  large  towns  have  a  surplus  of 
70,000  about,  while  the  small  towns  have  a  surplus  of  34,000. 
That  is  on  the  basis  of  600  and  1,200.  If  you  put  it  on  the 
basis  of  600  for  the  first  representative  and  1,800  for  the 
second,  you  will  find  that  in  the  cities  there  will  be  about 
146,000  surplus,  while  the  small  towns  will  have  only  34,000. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  731 

That  does  not  look  as  though  the  small  towns  were  getting  so 
badly  used  as  we  might  be  led  to  believe  by  their  arguments. 

Mr.  Smith  of  Hillsborough — We  are  willing  to  submit  to  a 
loss  of  some  of  our  representatives,  because  we  believe  in  a  re- 
duction of  the  house,  and  we  are  willing  to  bear  our  part  in 
such  reduction.  I  believe,  however,  that  the  proposition 
embodied  in  the  report  of  the  minority  committee  is  unfair, 
inasmuch  as  it  attempts  to  lay  the  whole  burden  of  the  reduc- 
tion upon  the  large  cities  and  towns  of  the  state.  Those  who 
represent  the  small  towns  and  those  who  are  in  favor  of  the 
town  system,  it  seems  to  me,  should  be  willing  to  concede 
something  for  the  purpose  of  this  reduction.  I  myself  am  in 
favor  of  the  town  system  as  against  the  district  system,  and 
voted  for  that  proposition  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole, 
and  also  voted  for  reducing  the  membership  of  the  house  of 
representatives,  and  we  are  all  substantially  agreed  upon  that 
point.  But  there  is  a  diversity  here  in  the  manner  in  which 
the  reduction  should  be  made.  I  think  it  should  be  made  in 
the  spirit  of  fairness  to  all  sections  of  the  state,  to  the  cities 
and  large  towns  as  well  as  the  smaller  towns,  and  I  think  the 
resolution  reported  by  the  majority  of  the  committee  is  the 
one  much  fairer  to  the  whole  state  at  large. 

Mr.  Barton  of  Newport — Mr.  President  and  members  of 
the  Convention:  I  certainly  do  not  wish  to  stand  up  here 
and  advocate  an  unfair  proposition.  I  stand,  I  think,  on  cor- 
rect principles.  I  may  be  a  victim  of  my  convictions,  but  at 
any  rate  I  have  no  other  motive  than  to  advocate  some  thing 
which  I  believe  is  right  and  eminently  just.  I  stand  on  this 
proposition  where  I  stood  on  the  day  I  introduced  the  resolu- 
tion on  this  subject. 

It  seems  to  me  we  fail  to  consider  the  distinction  between 
losing  the  last  man  and  dropping  one  of  many.  That  has 
been  referred  to  a  good  many  times,  but  have  we  carefully 
considered  what  it  means — the  losing  of  the  last  man  who 
stands  for  a  town  and  who  appears  in  the  court  and  answers 


732    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

for  its  cause,  or  the  loss  of  a  man  from  a  delegation  of  two  or 
or  three  or  four.  The  losing  of  one  man  is  losing  all  that 
the  town  has,  while  the  losing  of  one  of  three  or  four  is  losing 
only  a  portion.  One  man  stands  for  a  principle,  he  stands 
for  representation,  and  that  we  recognize  in  the  American 
government  through  all  of  its  relations  with  the  people. 
When  you  get  more  than  enough  men  to  represent  you  and 
your  interests,  then  you  are  getting  into  the  field  of  politics 
pure  and  simple,  and  you  say  because  you  drop  one  or  two  in 
your  field  of  politics  the  little  town  should  drop  the  last  man 
it  has  for  representation.  The  distinction  between  the  two 
ought  to  be  carefully  considered.  You  are  asking  us  to  lose 
our  representative,  and  we  are  asking  you  to  lose  one  or  two 
in  your  field  of  politics.  Manchester  can  be  amply  repre- 
sented by  thirty-two  or  thirty-three  or  thirty-four  men,  but 
when  you  take  away  a  representative  from  a  little  town,  its 
last  man  is  gone  and  it  is  not  represented  at  all. 

The  majority  of  this  committee  have  attempted  to  insert 
into  their  proposition  which  they  present  to  us  a  district  sys- 
tem. It  crops  out  all  the  way  along.  It  is  a  district  system 
from  first  to  last,  and  whatever  they  have  put  in  it  of  the 
town  system  amounts  to  almost  nothing.  Of  what  effect,  too, 
is  their  district  system  where  two  towns  may  join  together  to 
choose  a  representative?  How  will  it  work?  The  resolution 
provides  that  two  or  more  towns  who  cannot  choose  a  repre- 
sentative for  themselves  on  account  of  their  small  population 
can  join  together  and  send  a  representative  to  the  legislature, 
but  in  practice  how  will  that  work?  The  two  or  more  towns 
will  have  to  agree.  If  one  wants  to  join  with  another,  and 
the  other  does  not  want  to,  the  whole  thing  is  of  no  practical 
utility. 

It  seems  to  me  you  are  placing  upon  the  111  towns  a  system 
which  you  have  repudiated.  If  you  take  this  step  you  are 
crowding  these  towns  into  a  district  system,  and  everybody 
not  in  favor  of  the  district  system — everybody  in  favor  of  the 
town  system — ought  to  oppose  this  report  of  the  majority. 

That,  gentlemen,  is  all  I  have  to  say  on  this  subject.     If 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  733 

you  look  at  the  figures  you  will  find  it  takes  the  same  number 
—2,400 — to*  get  the  second  representative  in  both  plans  pro- 
posed, and  as  you  go  up  the  scale  the  two  systems  are  identi- 
cal. The  only  difference  is  that  the  report  of  the  majority 
calls  for  800  in  population  for  the  first  representative,  while 
the  report  of  the  minority  bases  the  first  representative  upon 
600,  and  it  is  between  600  and  800  that  the  damage  is  done. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — The  first  speech  made  before 
the  Convention  on  this  question,  if  I  recollect  correctly,  was 
made  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Lyford,  in  favor 
of  the  district  system.  He  represented  to  the  members  of  this 
Convention  that  the  district  system  was  the  only  one  by  which 
absolute  equality  could  be  obtained  in  the  representation  of 
the  different  sections  of  the  state.  That  proposition  was  op- 
posed by  many  of  the  members  of  this  Convention  from  the 
small  towns,  they  declaring  themselves  in  favor  of  the  town 
system  on  the  ground  that  the  small  towns  would  be  practi- 
cally annihilated  if  the  district  system  prevailed.  They  told 
us  they  preferred  to  retain  their  town  system,  and  take  repre- 
sentation a  proportionate  part  of  the  time,  rather  than  be 
classed  under  the  district  system.  Upon  that  representation 
many  members  voted  in  favor  of  the  .town  system,  when  their 
interests  and  the  interests  of  the  locality  from  which,  they 
came  were  naturally  in  favor  of  the  district  system,  and  the 
town  system  was  consequently  adopted  by  the  vote  of  this 
Convention. 

Now  these  original  advocates  of  the  town  system  claim 
that  the  whole  reduction  should  be  made  from  the  large  towns 
and  cities,  and  that  the  small  towns  should  still  retain  the 
same  number  of  representatives  they  now  have.  This  does 
not  seem  fair.  I  believe  the  same  ratio  should  be  preserved 
between  the  large  towns  and  cities  and  the  small  towns  that 
have  existed  since  the  Convention  of  1889.  That  is  exactly 
what  the  delegates  from  the  small  towns  told  us  they  were 
willing  to  do,  if  the  town  system  could  be  retained. 

How  do  the  delegates  from  the  small  towns  expect  members 
of  this  Convention,  who  live  in  the  large  towns  and  cities,  to 


734     JOURNAL  OP  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

go  to  their  constituents  and  ask  them  to  give  away  a  part  of 
their  representation  for  the  sole  benefit  of  these  small  towns? 
Such  a  proposition  ought  not  to  be  entertained  at  all.  Every 
one  ought  to  be  willing  to  compromise,  and  compromise 
means  a  yielding  on  both  sides.  It  is  no  attempt  to  com- 
promise for  one  side  to  demand  all,  and  insist  that  the  other 
side  shall  yield  the  whole. 

I  am  friendly  to  all  these  small  towns.  I  was  born  and 
brought  up  in  a  small  town,  and  know  the  inconveniences  of 
living  in  a  place  of  that  kind,  and  I  can  subscribe  to  much 
that  has  been  said  in  favor  of  the  small  towns,  as  against  the 
large  towns;  but,  nevertheless,  I  claim  that  the  small  towns 
ought  to  be  willing  to  deal  justly  with  the  large  towns  and 
cities.  All  that  the  large  towns  and  cities  want  is  equality, 
which  every  man  in  this  Convention  declares  he  is  willing  to 
give.  In  order  to  have  that  equality,  or  as  nearly  that  as  pos- 
sible under  the  town  system,  it  is  necessary  for  the  small 
towns  to  accept  the  report  of  the  majority  of  this  committee, 
and  bear  their  proportionate  part  of  the  reduction  we  have 
voted  to  make. 

Mr.  Sanders  of  Deny — Is  it  not  perhaps  possible  there  are 
worse  than  wolves  living  in  some  of  our  cities? 

I  believe  every  country  town  in  the  state  should  have  a  rep- 
resentative here.  It  is  no  more  than  their  right,  and  they  be- 
lieve they  are  justly  entitled  to  it,  I  fail  to  see  what  differ- 
ence it  makes  whether  100  members  compose  our  legislature, 
or  400.  A  dozen  men,  whoi  have  ability  and  are  recognized  all 
•over  the  state,  do  practically  the  work  of  the  legislature. 
They  introduce  all  the  measures,  and  do  all  the  talking. 
Their  ability  is  recognized.  They  are  able  fellows,  smart  and 
intelligent,  and  they  have  been  in  the  legislature  in  previous 
years  and  know  the  ropes  and  know  what  to  do  and  how  to  do 
it,  and  the  other  members  of  the  legislature  follow,  and  per- 
haps rightly,  the  lead  of  these  men.  For  instance:  Take  it 
in  this  very  Convention,  there  are  a  few  men  who  have  done 
all  the  work,  and  there  are  the  others,  perhaps  300,  who  have 


I 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  735 

taken  no  active  part  in  these  sessions.  They  have  done  no 
harm,  and  perhaps  have  done  no  good,  but  they  have  been  im- 
bibing knowledge  which  they  will  carry  to  their  homes.  It 
makes  them  better  citizens,  better  able  to  advise  their  fellow- 
men,  better  able  to  give  counsel  to*  their  fellow-men.  They 
learn  lessons  here  which  they  would  not  learn  elsewhere,  yes, 
and  lessons  which  they  will  never  forget.  The  gentleman 
from  Manchester,  Mr.  Cross,  has  said  that  the  legislature  was 
not  intended  for  a  school.  Very  true,  but  it  is  a  benefit  for 
these  gentlemen  to  come  here  and  to  learn  what  they  would 
learn  in  no  other  way,  and  any  expense  that  may  be  incurred 
over  and  above  what  is  actually  necessary  for  legislative  pur- 
poses I.  believe  to  be  well  expended.  I  would  have  this  legis- 
lature remain  as  it  is  to-day,  but  amend  the  law  so  there  shall 
be  no  increase  of  the  present  number. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover — From  the  moment  I  entered  this 
Convention  up  to  the  present  time  I  have  earnestly  desired 
to  maintain  a  system  perhaps  unequal,  but  better  than  any 
other  system  in  existence — the  town  system.  I  believe  in 
that  to-da.y,  and  it  is  because  I  believe  in  the  town  system — 
notwithstanding  the  arguments  of  inequality  which  are  spe- 
cious ones,  it  seems  to  me — that  I  take  the  position  I  do  now. 
If  I  believed  we  could  maintain  the  town  system  on  the  basis 
of  600  for  the  first  and  1,800  for  the  second  representative, 
I  should  most  earnestly  advocate  it. 

I  am  speaking  now  to  the  advocates  of  the  town  system. 

It  is  a  system  I  believe  to  be  absolutely  right  and  just,  and 
it  is  because  I  want  to  preserve  it  that  I  take  the  position 
which  I  do  to-day. 

I  shall  vote  to  preserve  or  endorse  the  majority  report,  be- 
cause I  believe  that  if  we  adopt  the  minority  report  the  work 
of  this  Convention,  in  this  respect,  at  least,  will  be  repudiated 
by  the  people.  If  that  were  all;  I  would  say  no.  But 'there  is 
something  else  that  appeals  to  me  as  bearing  upon  the  preser- 
vation of  the  old  New  England  town  system.  If  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  minority  is  accepted  by  the  Convention  and  re- 


736     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

pudiated  by  the  people  of  New  Hampshire,  another  Conven- 
tion will  come  back  here  and,  gentlemen  of  the  Convention 
who  advocate  the  town  system,  you  will  be  beaten  in  such  a 
Convention,  and  the  district  system  will  be  adopted.  So,  I 
say,  let  us  adopt  the  majority  report  and  thus  preserve  the 
town  system.  In  my  judgment  it  will  be  endorsed  by  tho 
people  at  the  polls. 

One  thing  further.  The  advocates  of  the  district  system  in 
their  amendments  have  constantly  alluded  to  what  they 
assume  to  be  a  fact,  that  the  town  system  was  doomed.  I  do 
not  believe  it.  I  believe  the  tendency  is  for  better  roads  and 
improved  facilities  of  travel,  and  people  will  come  out  of  the 
cities  and  have  residences  in  the  country,  and  in  the  near 
future,  when  the  census  taker  comes,  the  greater  proportion 
of  the  population  will  be  found  in  the  country  towns.  And 
to-day  upon  us  depends  the  question  whether,  by  the  action 
taken  here,  we  shall  preserve  the  town  system  for  future  years, 
or  lose  it.  It  is  for  these  reasons,  as  I  have  already  said,  that 
while  advocating  the  town  system,  I  urge  upon  you,  friends  of 
the  town  system,  the  adoption  of  the  majority  report. 

As  has  been  alluded  to,  when  arguing  with  the  friends  of 
the  district  system,  we  told  them  that  we  did  not  want  the 
district  system,  that  we  were  willing  to  be  pro-rated,  only  save 
us  our  individuality,  and  many  of  you,  like  the  gentleman 
from  the  town  of  Temple,  asked  here  that  you  might  be  per- 
mitted to  send  a  representative  as  a  town  instead  of  being 
classed  as  a  district  with  two,  or  three,  or  four  towns.  Gen- 
tlemen, the  majority  report  retains  the  town  system,  and 
while  it  pro-rates  a  larger  number  of  towns  than  are  at  present 
pro-rated,  it  is  what  we  said  we  were  willing  to  accept  in  order 
to  retain  the  town  system. 

I  believe  and  hope  that  all  of  you  who  believe  in  the  town 
system  will  vote  for  the  majority  report,  and  in  that  way  we 
shall  preserve  the  town  system,  not  for  a  few  years,  but  for 
many  years,  for  I  believe  if  we  adopt  the  majority  report  our 
action  will  be  ratified  at  the  polls,  and  what  we  do  here  will 
be  effectual  in  preserving  the  town  system. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  737 

Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton — I  rise  not  to  make  a  speech  but 
to  explain  why  I  shall  vote  for  800  and  1,600. 

This  is  a  representative  government.  I  am  one  of  those 
who  believe  not  only  that  every  man,  woman,  and  child  should 
be  represented  every  minute  of  the  time,  but  that  every  inch 
of  territory — c'ountry  and  city — should  be  represented  every 
minute  of  the  time.  That  can  only  be  accomplished  by  the 
district  system  which  I  voted  for.  That  scheme  has  been  re- 
jected, although  in  my  judgment  it  was  the  most  adequate 
scheme  presented  to  the  Convention.  That  scheme  was  re- 
jected upon  the  grounds  of  sentiment  and  tradition.  That 
scheme  being  rejected,  the  Convention  was  brought  to  the 
question  how  the  house  of  representatives  could  be  reduced 
upon  the  town  plan. 

I  am  one  of  those  who  never  would  have  voted  to  raise  the 
number  necessary  for  the  first  representative  from  600  to-  800, 
but  for  the  splendid  •discussion  and  the  just  plan  submitted 
to  the  Convention  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Mitchell.  He  has  suggested  to  this  Convention  a  plan  where- 
by no  future  disfranchisement  of  towns  need  to  go  on, — a 
principle  upon  which  every  town  can  be  represented  every 
minute  of  the  time.  While,  therefore,  as  I  have  said,  I  would 
not  and  could  not  consistently  have  voted  under  the  town 
system  to  have  raised  the  number  for  the  first  representative  to 
800,  yet  under  this  plan  presented  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  in  order  that  the  diminution  of  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives shall  fall  on  all  portions  of  the  state  alike,  I  can  con- 
sistently vote  to  raise  the  minimum  from  600  to  800,  because 
at  the  same  time  we  extend  to  the  towns  which  would  thereby 
be  disfranchised  an  opportunity  to  come  in  and  class  them- 
selves with  other  towns  and  in  that  way  be  represented  all  the 
time  in  our  legislature.  Thus  there  is  no  compulsory  dis- 
franchisement. The  situation  of  disfranchisement  would  be 
wholly  a  voluntary  one.  The  towns  of  less  than  800  inhabi- 
tants can  get  together  and  be  represented  all  the  time.  If 
they  stay  out,  it  is  because  they  do  not  want  representation. 
For  instance,  the  town  of  Pitteburg  and  the  town  of  Clarks- 
47 


738    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ville  can  associate  themselves  together  and  have  a  representa- 
tive all  the  time,  instead  of  the  town  of  Pittsburg  having  a 
representative  two  thirds  of  the  time  and  the  town  of  Clarks- 
ville  one  third  of  the  time. 

The  same  principle  spreads  over  the  entire  state.  Under 
this  plan,  if  any  towns  are  unrepresented,  it  is  because  they 
voluntarily  put  themselves  in  that  attitude. 

I  am  in  the!  situation  of  the  young  fellow  halting  between 
his  first  and  his  second  love.  My  native  town  is  the  last  one 
•on  the  map.  It  is  a  small  town,  but  an  important  one  for  all 
that.  It  finds  itself  like  the  little  boy  in  school  who  was  num- 
ber twenty  in  his  class,  and  when  asked  why  he  was  there, 
•said:  "Because  there  were  only  twenty  in  the  class."  That 
is  the  way  with  my  native  town.  There  is  no  town  beyond  it, 
and  yet  I  have  an  interest  in  it  as  well  as  in  the  town  of  Lit- 
tleton. I  therefore  desire  that  a  measure  shall  be  passed  here 
which  will  be  equitable  to  the  small  town  as  well  as  to  the 
larger  one. 

Now  I  say  that  the  plan  advanced  by  the  gentleman  from 
Concord,  Mr.  Mitchell,  of  extending  to  the  pro-rated  towns 
under  a  certain  number  of  inhabitants  the  opportunity  to  get 
together  and  send  a  representative  to  the  legislature,  involves 
a  principle  which  leaves  it  entirely  with  the  towns  under  800 
to  be  represented  or  not  as  they  choose.  There  is  nothing 
compulsory  about  it.  They  can  send  a  representative  down 
here  if  they  choose  a  proportionate  part  of  the  time,  or  they 
can*  come  in  with  other  towns  and  be  represented  all  the  time. 
For  this  reason  I  shall  vote  for  the  majority  report  which  de- 
clares that  the  basis  shall  be  800  for  the  first  and  1,600  for 
the  second  representative. 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — I  desire  to  take  but  one 
minute  of  your  time.  My  position  in  relation  to  this  question, 
as  you  know,  is  that  I  have  been  in  favor  of  the  town  system. 
It  is  because  I  wish  the  perpetuation  of  the  town  system, 
and  because  I  wish  to  have  the  town  system  kept  in  the  or- 
ganic law  of  this  state  that  I  shall  vote  for  the  majoritv  re- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  739 

port.  If  we  adopt  the  minority  report — even  if  it  should  be 
carried  by  this  Convention  and  be  ratified  by  the  people — the 
time  would  come  when  we  would  have  so  many  representa- 
tives here  thai  another  convention  would  be  called  very  soon 
.and  the  same  question  would  come  up  before  that  conven- 
tion, and  very  likely  the  district  system  adopted. 

I  believe  under  this  present  ratio  we  can  maintain  for  forty 
years  at  least  this  town  system.  On  the  ratio  of  50  per  cent, 
increase  in  the  country  towns  and  50  per  cent,  increase  in 
the  cities,  we  can  maintain  our  present  town  system  for  the 
next  fifty  years,  and  then  let  the  next  generation  tackle  this 
problem.  I  am  in  favor  of  the  report  of  the  majority. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord. — I  desire,  in  the  first  place,  to  apolo- 
gize to  my  friend  from  Wentworth,  Mr.  Shute,  for  my  mis- 
take in  saying  that  he  occupied  the  floor  so  much.  It  was 
his  earnestness  outside  this  chamber  that  misled  me. 

When  the  vote  was  taken  in  this  Convention,  rejecting  the 
district  system,  I  accepted  that  vote  in  perfect  good  faith.  I 
desire  to  thank  the  gentlemen  from  the  country  towns  for  the 
fairness  with  which  they  have  treated  me  in  the  presentation 
of  a  proposition  which  to  them  appeared  unfair.  I  accepted 
the  result  and  the  vote  of  this  Convention  as  a  desire  to  pre- 
serve the  town  system. 

Xow,  then,  any  proposition  that  increases  the  inequality 
over  what  exists  now  so  far  as  inhabitants  are  concerned  is, 
in  my  judgment,  doomed  to  failure.  If  I  desired  a  personal 
vindication  of  the  position  I  have  taken  on  the  district  system 
I  would  ask  that  the  proposition  submitted  here  by  the 
minority  of  the  committee  be  presented  to  the  people,  for,  in 
my  judgment,  it  would  be  defeated,  and  with  that  defeat 
would  come  an  increase  of  the  house  within  the  next  ten  years 
which  would  necessitate  another  convention  to  reduce  the 
house  of  representatives.  Then  the  question  will  be,  not  of 
method,  but  how  much  the  house  can  be  reduced. 

Gentlemen  here  have  expressed  varied  opinions  as  to 
Avli  ether  the  resolution  of  the  minority  would  be  defeated  or 


740     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

not.  I  only  wish  to  say  that  the  votes  to  carry  any  proposi- 
tion would  come  largely  from  the  large  towns  and  cities  of  the 
state,  and  it  is  much  easier  to  rally  votes  against  a  proposition 
than  it  is  for  it. 

The  proposition  presented  by  the  majority  of  the  commit- 
tee reduces  the  house  in  this  manner — it  takes  sixty-six  mem- 
bers from  the  large  towns  and  cities  and  takes  fourteen  from 
the  pro-rated  towns — a  proportion  of  about  five  to  one.  The 
incoming  house  of  representatives  will  be  393,  and  so  you  see 
with  a  house  of  313  there  is  a  reduction  of  eighty  members, 
and  sixty-six  of  those  members.,  as  I  have  said,  will  be  taken 
from  the  large  towns  and  cities  of  the  state,  and  fourteen,  or 
one  third  of  the  new  pro-rated  towns,  will  come  from  the 
forty-two  towns  which  would  have  to  be  pro-rated  under  that 
measure. 

Is  there  any  fairer  proposition  that  could  be  presented  to 
this  house  under  the  town  system. 

In  the  manual  prepared  by  the  gentleman  from  Hanover, 
Mr.  Colby,  it  will  be  found  that  in  1791  there  were  a  number 
of  classed  towns — the  number  being  much  larger  than  at  the 
present  time.  Rockingham  county  had  eleven;  Carroll 
county —  all  of  its  towns  were  classed;  Merrimack  county  had 
six,  and  Grafton  county  had  twenty  classed  towns.  The 
other  counties  ran  in  the  same  proportion,  and  yet  it  was 
not  deemed  by  our  forefathers  that  any  injustice  was  being 
done  the  towns  by  that  method  of  classification. 

Gentlemen  have  said  that  we  can  afford  to  lose  from  the 
large  towns  and  the  cities  of  the  state  better  than  they  can 
afford  to  accept  a  reduction  from  the  small  towns.  But  is 
that  so?  When  it  comes  to  a  question  before  the  legislature, 
a  question  of  taxation,  a  question  of  voting  appropriations, 
and  almost  every  other  question  of  importance  before  the 
legislature,  are  not  the  large  towns  and  the  cities  as  much  in- 
terested in  those  questions  as  the  smaller  towns,  and  do  not 
the  interests  of  these  large  towns  and  the  cities  demand  that 
they  should  have  their  proportion  of  representation  in  the  leg- 
islature? In  the  legislature  it  is  a*  question  of  votes,  and  the 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  741 

people  of  the  large  towns  and  the  cities  of  the  state  will  look 
at  this  question,  not  in  the  light  of  sentiment  merely,  but  in 
the  light  of  what  is  just  to  all  the  state. 

If  the  gentlemen  desire  the  district  system  presented  inside 
of  ten  or  fifteen  years,  they  will  do  well  to  submit  the  proposi- 
tion of  the  minority  to  the  people,  for  that  will  be  defeated  at 
the  polls.  But  if  they  desire  to  preserve  the  town  system,  as 
the  vote  of  this  Convention  would  seem  to  indicate,  they 
should  accept  the  proposition  presented  by  the  majority  of 
the  committee.  You  can  then  preserve  the  town  system  on 
that  basis  probably  for  a  period  of  twenty  or  twenty-five  years. 

Mr.  Eastman  of  Exeter — Like  the  gentlemen  who  have  pre- 
ceded me  in  the  discussion  of  these  questions,  I  rise  to  give 
my  reasons  why  I  shall  support  the  minority  report  of  the 
committee. 

When  we  came  here  there  were  two  propositions  submitted, 
whether  the  district  system  or  the  town  system  should  be  the 
system  to  prevail  in  choosing  the  representatives  in  the  future. 
We  voted  to  have  the  town  system,  and  the  argument  then 
was  that  if  we  had  a,  town  system  and  adopted  a  certain  basis 
-of  representation  it  would  cause  the  pro-rating  of  other  towns; 
that  we  already  had  sixty-nine  towns  pro-rated,  and  it  would 
pro-rate  forty-three  other  towns.  That  was  the  reason  urged 
against  that  basis  of  representation,  as  I  understood.  A  vote 
ocf  this  Convention  was  taken,  and  this  Convention  voted  to 
have  the  number  necessar}'"  for  the  first  representative  600. 
Now,  then,  itl  is  said  that  this  is  unequal  and  unjust  to  the 
cities  and  larger  towns  of  the  state,  and  if  presented  to  the 
people  it  will  not  be  ratified. 

Arguments  of  this  kind  remind  me  of  an  incident  that  oc- 
curred during  the  Civil  war.  A  certain  general  declared  that 
a  certain  fort  could  not  be  taken,  and  he  succeeded  in  con- 
vincing the  president  and  his  cabinet  that  his  assertion  was 
true,  but  while  he  was  demonstrating  his  claim  another  gen- 
eral took  the  fort. 

The  statement  of  these  gentlemen  that  it  is  a  fact  that  the 
vote  as  taken  will  be  absolutely  defeated  by  the  people  is,  in 


742     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

my  judgment,,  as  true  as  the  proposition  decided  by  that  gen- 
eral. My  judgment  is  to  the  contrary.  What  large  town 
comes  here  to  say  that  it  is  not  willing  to  make  a  concession 
in  this  regard  to  the  small  towns  of  the  state?  Have  we  not 
had  representatives  from  these  larger  towns  who  have  advo- 
cated and  endorsed  this  number  of  600  for  the  first  repre- 
sentative, and  is  it  to  be  believed  that  they  do  not  under- 
stand the  feelings  of  their  constituents  and  fellow-citizens  in 
this  regard,?  I  believe  that  the  people  of  the  state  are  ready 
to  endo<rse  the  proposition  submitted  to  them  on  the  basis  of 
600  for  the  first  representative,  and  the  information  which 
leads  me  to  that  belief  comes  from  the  gentlemen  who  signed 
the  minority  report  of  this  committee,  one  of  whom  is  Mr. 
Cochran.  He  has  taken  some  pains  to  inquire  in  his  locality 
about  how  the  feeling  is,  and  believes  that  the  people  would 
be  satisfied  with  the  measure  introduced  here  by  the  minority. 

You  would  think,  by  the  remarks  of  some  of  the  gentlemen 
opposed  to  this  minority  report  that  all  the  inhabitants  were 
in  the  cities.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  two  fifths  are  in  the  cities 
and  three  fifths  outside.  Are  the  three  fifths  not  entitled  to 
consideration  by  this  Convention? 

They  say  that  we  are  not  going  to  cut  down  the  house  suf- 
ficiently by  the  proposition  made  by  the  minority.  The  ma- 
jority report  makes  the  house  313,  and  the  proposition  of  the 
minority  of  600  for  the  first  representative  and  1,800  addi- 
tional for  the  second  representative,  makes  a  house  of  324  or 
327.  That  is  an  enormous  difference!  It  is  not  worth  consid- 
ering. Is  it  of  any  material  difference  when  you  talk  about 
cutting  down  the  house,  whether  it  is  cut  down  to  313  or 
324? — it  is  a  difference  of  between  thirteen  and  twenty-four. 

Now  the  gentleman  from  Littleton,  Mr.  Aldrich,  a  gentle- 
man whom  I  respect,  said  that  he  was  in  favor  of  600  for  the 
first  representative  until  he  heard  of  the  magnificent  proposi- 
tion made  on  the  part  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Mitchell.  Now  what  is  the  proposition  offered  by  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord?  It  is  simply  this,  that  towns  under  a 
certain  number  may  be  given  the  right  to  class  themselves  to- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  743 

gether  and  to  that  extent  it  favors  the  district  system.  It 
allows  the  towns  to  form  districts  and  unite  together  and  in 
that  way,  as  the  gentleman  from  Littleton  says,  be  repre- 
sented all  the  time.  But  this  proposition  of  the  district  sys- 
tem has  been  repudiated  by  this  Convention,  and  yet  the  gen- 
tleman from  Littleton  says  that  on  account  of  that  proposi- 
tion he  favors  the  majority  report,  and  if  it  had  not  been  for 
that  reason  he  would  be  in  favor  of  adhering  to  the  original 
proposition  of  600.  That  is  no  reason  at  all,  I  submit,  when 
you  come  to<  investigate  it. 

But  why  should  we  make  this  change  at  this  time?  Why 
should  we  force  upon  the  small  towns  a  basis  of  representa- 
tion which  they  do  not  want?  Is  there  any  great  clamor  for  a 
decrease  of  the  size  of  the  house  to  a  considerable  extent?  As 
has  been  said,  the  people  are  not  greatly  desirous  of  decreas- 
ing the  number  in  the  house,  and  they  will  not  do  so  if  it  in- 
volves injustice  to  any  part  of  the  state. 

The  President — Under  the  order  adopted  by  the  Conven- 
tion the  vote  will  be  taken  at  this  time  unless  some  further 
order  is  made. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays. 

The  President — It  is  the  general  understanding,  and  by 
unanimous  consent  the  vote  will  be  taken  by  yeas  and  nays. 
The  question  is  upon  the  motion  offered  by  the  gentleman 
from  Peterborough,  Mr.  Scott,  that  the  report  of  the  minority 
be  substituted  for  that  of  the  majority.  Those  who  are  in 
favor  of  substituting  the  report  of  the  minority  will  vote  yes, 
and  those  who  are  opposed  will  vote  no.  The  vote  "yes"  to 
sustain  the  minority  report  is  a  vote  to  sustain  the  figures  of 
600  and  1,800,  and  the  vote  "no"  for  the,  majority  is  to  sustain 
the  figures  800  and  1,600. 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative: 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Conley,  Sanborn  of  Auburn,  Flan- 
ders of  Brenkvood,  Eaton,  Knowles,  Kimball  of  Danville, 


744     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Kelsey  of  Deerfield,  Morrill,  Eastman,,  Follansby,  Wetherell, 
Leddy,  Hooke,  Sanborn  of  Hampstead,  Towle,  Weare,  Shaw, 
Chase  of  Kingston,,  Pollard,,  de  Rochemont,  Burley,  Walker, 
of  Newmarket,  Battles,  Gate,  Kelsey  of  Nottingham,  Healey, 
Jewell  of  South  Hampton,  Wingate,  Clark  of  Windham. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY.  Fo-lsom,  Chesley,  Nutter  of  Farm- 
ington,  Willson  of  Farmington,  Webb,  Gerrish,  Moore,  Cham- 
berlain, Nute  of  Rochester,  Springfield,  Cochrane,  Nutter  of 
Rollinsford,  Libby,  Hall  of  Strafford. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY.  Demeritt,  Colbath,  Bryar,  Clark  of 
Center  Harbor,  Morrill  of  Gilford,  Cogswell,  Smith  of  Mere- 
dith, Smith  of  New  Hampton,  Rogers. 

CARROLL  COUNTY.  Nickerson,  Rideout,  Colman,  Spencer, 
Morrill  of  Conway,  Dearborn  of  Eaton,  Harmon,  Merrow, 
Murch,  Meserve,  Gilman,  Goodwin,  Brown  of  Ossipee,  Dorr, 
Page  of  Tamworth,  Morrison  of  Tuftonborough,  Hersey. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY.  Buxton,  Baker,  French  of  Brad- 
ford, Frame,  Sanborn  of  Chichester,  Virgin,  Jordan,  Ford  of 
Danbury,  Caldwell,  Dolbeer,  "Wilson  of  Hill,  Head,  Putnam, 
Clough  of  London,  Messer,  Todd,  Wyatt,  Green  of  Pittsfield, 
Webster,  Lang. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Hubbard,  Woodbury  of  Bedford, 
Kimball  of  Bennington,  Fessenden,  Whitaker  of  Deering, 
Downes,  Peavey,  Bacon,  Fogg,  Powers  of  Hollis,  Marsh,  Tar- 
bell,  Whitaker  of  Mason,  Gordon,  Raymond,  Hamblett,  Har- 
riman,  Dodge  of  New  Boston,  Blanchard,  Seavey,  Scott,  Had- 
ley,  Simons,  Chapman. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Amidon,  Learned,  Madden,  Craig  of 
Marlow,  Caiss,  Buckminster,  McClure,  Rugg,  Clement  of 
Surry,  Davis. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY.  Mitchell  of  Acworth,  Fairbanks,  Ide, 
Hanson  of  Goshen,  Burpee,  Holmes,  Noyes,  Barton,  Brown  of 
Sprimgneld,  Bartlett,  Newton,  Brockway. 

GRAFTON  COUNTY.     Bucklin,  Carbee,  Parker  of  Benton, 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  745 

Morrill  of  Bridgewater,  Pulsifer  of  Campton,  Ashley,  Young 
of  Easton,  Avery,  Walker  of  Graf  ton,  Kidder,  Pike  of  Haver- 
hill,  Jewell  of  Hebron,  Flanders,  Glazier,  Woolson,  Stoddard, 
Melvin,  Warden,  French  of  Orange,  Lamprey  of  Orford,  Ford 
of  Piermont,  Craig  of  Rumney,  Bowles,  Park,  Green  of  Water- 
ville,  Shute,  Woodbury  of  Woodstock. 

Coos  COUNTY.  Paine,  Daley,  Miles,  Johnson,  Titus,  Brit- 
ton,  Wight  of  Dummer,  Thurston,  Kent,  Phipps,  Blanchard, 
Pike  of  Stark,  Hinman,  Aldrich  of  Whitefield,  Dodge  of 
Whitefield. 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative: 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Sanders,  Gillispie,  Abbott  of 
Derry,  Fuller,  Pillsbury,  Peaslee,  Emery,  S.  W.,  Emery,  S.  P., 
Howard,  Norris,  Paul,  Ham,  Cullen,  Sawyer  of  Eye,  Cole, 

Wheeler. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY.  Leighton,  Morrison  of  Dover,  Moul- 
ton,  Roberts,  Hanson  of  Dover,  Nealley,  Hall  of  Dover,  Mo- 
rang,  Nute,  Murphy,  Furbush,  Meader,  Gelinas,  Gunnison, 
Edgerly,  Leary,  Roy,  Morin. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY.  Pulsifer  of  Laconia,  Jewett,  Gorrell, 
Busiel,  Thompson  of  Laconia,  Lewis,  Knox,  Fellows. 

CARROLL  COUNTY.  Hobson,  Gibson,  Sanborn  of  Wake- 
field,  Clow. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY.  Blodgett  of  Allenstown,  Stone  of 
Andover,  Dudley  of  Concord,  Foote,  Hollis,  Lyford,  Mitchell 
of  Concord,  Eamball,  Walker  of  Concord,  Lamprey  of  Con- 
cord, Niles,  Foster,  Howe,  Whittier,  Ingalls,  Chandler,  Casey, 
Stone  of  Franklin,  Leach,  Towne,  Wilkins,  Chickering,  Trues- 
dell,  Miller,  Thompson  of  Warner. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Colby,  Paige  of  Goffstown, 
Smith  of  Hillsborough,  Lambert,  Wilkinson,  Abbott  of  Man- 
chester, Brings,  Cross,  Hunt,  Green  of  Manchester,  Dodge  of 
Manchester,  Boutwell,  Little,  Rose,  Jones,  Robinson,  Trem- 
blay,  Lord,  Gilmore,  Farrington,  Harvey,  Hill,  McDoaiough, 


746     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Tonery,  Starr,  Horan,  Greager,  Precourt,  Glancy,  Sullivan, 
Griffin,  Jennings,  Irwin,  McAllister,  Quirin  Joseph,  Allen, 
Clement  of  Manchester,  Powers  of  Manchester,  Littleneld, 
McQuesten,  McElroy,  Richer,  Provost,  Plante,  Quirin  Eugene, 
Guerin,  Boivin,  Hall  of  Manchester,  Paige  of  Manchester, 
Nettle,  Trinity,  Knight,  Botch,  Worcester,  Spring,  Clough  of 
Nashua,  Ledoux,  Parker  of  Nashua,  Woodbury  of  Nashua, 
Hallinan,  "VVason,  Proctor,  Runnells,  McKay,  Shedd,  Flather, 
Early,  Slattery,  Desmarais,  McGlynn,  Morrison  of  Peterbor- 
ough, Richardson,  Bales. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Cooke,  Blake,  Annett,  Poole,  Wright, 
Foskett,  Hall  of  Keene,  Newell,  Woodward,  Emory,  Day, 
Stone  of  Troy,  Spaulding,  Kiniry,  Goodnow. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY.  Brooks,  Tenney,  Stockwell,  Rossiter, 
Colby,  Bradley,  Penniman. 

GEAFTON  COUNTY.  Dearborn  of  Ashland,  Hildreth  of 
Bethlehem,  Chase  of  Bristol,  Richardson  of  Canaan,  Cumings, 
Dresser,  Parker  of  Franconia,  Ward,  Colby  of  Hanover,  West- 
gate,  Sloane,  Drake,  Dewey,  Hibbard,  Morris,  Aldrich  of  Lit- 
tleton, Green  of  Littleton,  Morse,  Russell,  Wentworth. 

Coos  COUNTY.  Wight  of  Berlin,  Moffett,  Laplante,  Rich, 
Boiudreau,  Murray,  Evans,  Crawford,  Perkins,  McKellips, 
Watson,  Philbrook,  Ripley. 

The  following  gentlemen  were  paired: 

Collins  of  Gilsum  and  Buckley  of  Hinsdale;  Taft  of  Keene 
and  Osgood  of  Nelson. 

And  177  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and 
199  gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  negative,  the  motion  to 
substitute  the  report  of  the  minority  for  that  of  the  majority 
was  lost. 

Question,  upon  the  adoption  of  the  majority  report  of  the 
committee.  The  affirmative  prevailed  and  the  report  was 


THUKSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  747 

adopted.,  and  the  amendment  proposed  by  a  majority  of  the 
Committee  on  the  Legislative  Department  and  adopted  by  the 
Convention  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode 
of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed  to  by 
the  Convention. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  now  call  up  the  proposition 
against  free  passes. 

The  President — The  chair  will  rule  that  it  is  not  in  order. 
The  special  order  is  that  in  reference  to  the  size  of  the  senate, 
which  was  made  to  follow  the  question  of  representation.  Be- 
fore the  special  order  is  taken  up  the  chair  submits  the  fol- 
lowing resolution  offered  by  the  gentleman  from  Manchester, 
Mr.  Cross: 

"Resolved,  That  the  present  session  of  this  Convention  come 
to  a  close  on  Friday  afternoon,  December  19,  at  3  o'clock." 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — It  does  not  occur  to  me  that 
there  will  be  any  difficulty  in  adjourning  to-morrow  after- 
noon if  an  evening  session  is  held  to-night,  and  all  proposi- 
tions adopted  by  the  Convention  are  sent  to  the  committee  of 
which  I  have  the  honor  toi  be  chairman.  The  final  resolu- 
tions of  the  Convention  submitting  to  the  people  the  amend- 
ments which  have  been  adopted  should  be  framed  with  care. 
If  the  Convention,  before  the  report  of  that  committee  is  in, 
decides  to  adjourn  to-morrow  afternoon,  we  shall  do  the  best 
we  can  this  afternoon  and  evening  to  prepare  the  report  and 
submit  it,  but  I  sincerely  hope  the  putting  of  that  motion  will 
be  reserved  until  the  committee  can  say  that  it  will  be  pre- 
pared to  make  its  report  in  season. 

The  President — The  chair  will  suggest  that  it  seems  to  be 
necessary  that  the  Committee  on  Finance  should  have  as  early 
information  as  may  be  with  reference  to  the  time  of  closing. 
They  are  in  some  trouble  now  with  reference  to  the  financial 
affairs,  and  there  may  have  to  be  a  report  this  evening  with. 


748     JOTJKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

reference  to  the  way  tihe  pay-rolls  are  to  be  made  up.  If  this 
adjournment  is  taken  at  3  o'clock  to-morrow  afternoon,  and 
the  Convention  is  to  "be  prepared  to  adjourn  at  that  time, 
it  is  somewhat  necessary  that  the  Committee  on  Finance 
should  have  early  notice  of  it. 

Mr.  Chandler,  of  Concord — Having  listened  with  attention 
to- the  argument  in  favor  of  the  resolution  from  the  presiding 
officer,  I  still  think  the  Convention  ought  not  to  vote  too 
hastily  as  to  final  adjournment.  I  have  no  objection  to  a  vote 
being  taken  that  we  will  adjourn  to-morrow  (Friday)  which 
gives  the  Convention  until  midnight  to-morrow  to  do  its  clos- 
ing work,  but  I  am  opposed  to  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman 
from  Manchester  at  this  time.  I  would  suggest  that  we  pass 
over  the  resolution  now,  or  still  better,  omit  the  hour  of  ad- 
journment. I  hope  the  gentleman  from  Manchester  will 
strike  out  the  hour,  so  that  the  motion  will  read  that  we  ad- 
journ to-morrow.  Then  the  Finance  Committee  can  figure 
upon  our  adjourning  to-morrow,  and  the  treasurer  can  get  his 
money  ready  with  which  to  pay  the  members,  and  the  mem- 
bers can  leave  town  some  time  Friday. 

Mr.  Cross  of  Manchester — Personally  I  have  no  wish  about 
it  either  way  as  to  the  time,  and  I  withdraw  the  resolution. 

The  special  order  was  called  for,  it  being  the  report  of  the 
•committee  on  the  various  resolutions  relating  to  the  size  of 
the  senate,  that  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution  as 
proposed. 

The  question  being  stated,  the  resolution  of  the  committee 
was  adopted. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  moved  that  the  Convention  now 
resolve  itself  into  Committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  the 
various  resolutions  in  relation  to  free  passes  on  railroads. 


THUESDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  749 

In  Committee  of  the  Whole. 
(Mr.  Madden  of  Keene  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — In  order  that  the  committee 
may  have  a  proposition  before  it  to  act  upon,  I  move  that  the 
committee  do  now  arise  ajid  recommend  to  the  Convention 
the  adoption  of  the  amendment  which  I  had  the  honor  to 
propose. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Committee:  It  seems  to  me  it  might  be  well  for  us  to 
pause  a  bit  before  we  recommend  the  adoption  of  an  amend- 
ment which  will  write  into  the  Constitution  of  the  state  a 
charge  against  all  the  legislators  that  we  have  had  in  the  past> 
that  they  have  not  done  their  duty,  and  a  fear  of  all  those  we 
are  going  to  have  in  the  future  that  they  will  not  do  theirs. 
I  believe  there  has  been  altogether  too  much  giving  of  free 
passes  in  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  if  we  were  in  the 
house  of  representatives  I  would  join  with  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  in  attempting  to  adopt  some 
sort  of  legislation  putting  a  prohibition  upon  the  pass  system. 
But  I  do  not  believe  we  ought  to  write  it  into  the  Constitu- 
tion. I  believe  it  is  properly  a  matter  of  legislation.  I  am  not 
retained  by  any  railroad  corporation  in  the  state,  and  I  do  not 
use  any  pass,  not  even  to  come  to  this  Convention,  and  there- 
fore I  feel  I  may  talk  on  this  matter  with  absolute  freedom. 

I  do  believe  in  all  seriousness  and  all  earnestness  that  there 
is  no  proper  place  in  our  Constitution  for  any  measure  of  this 
kind.  Action  in  this  regard  should  be  left  to  the  legislature. 
The  legislature  created  the  corporations  of  the  state,  and  it 
can  prescribe  all  the  restrictions  necessary  to  put  upon  the 
railroad  corporations  or  any  other  corporations  that  may  be 
chartered.  The  legislature  which  creates-  has  also  the  power 
to  regulate  and  to  destroy,  if  necessary.  And  the  legislature 
having  all  that  power,  it  does  seem  to  me  that  this  proposed 
amendment  is  not  needed.  The  argument  of  example  fails 
when  only  nine  states  of  the  Union  have  a  constitutional 


750     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

amendment  with  reference  to  this  matter,  and  only  one  of 
the  nine  goes  to  the  extent  which  the  gentleman  from  Con- 
cord, Mr.  Chandler,  wants  to  go  here.  Eight  of  those,  states 
simply  prohibit  the  giving  of  passes  to  the  officers  of  the  court 
and  to  members  of  the  legislature.  But  this  proposal  goes 
farther  than  that,  and  but  one  state,  namely,  the  state  of 
Pennsylvania,  has  gone  as  far.  And  the  state  of  Pennsylvania 
has  in  its  Constitution  more  legislation  than  all  the  other 
states  in  the  Union  have.  The  less  of  legislation  in  the  Con- 
stitution the  better,  I  think. 

For  this  reason,  that  I  believe  the  legislature  now  has  all 
the  necessary  power,  and  with  the  desire  that  the  Constitu- 
tion may  be  left  as  nearly  as  possible  as  it  came  from  our 
fathers,  I  ask  you  to  say  that  it  is  inexpedient)  to  write  into  it 
a  matter  with  which  the  legislature  of  the  state  has  now  full 
power  to  deal.  And  whenever  the  legislature  acts  in  ac- 
cordance with  the  dictates  of  the  two  political  parties  to 
which  its  members  belong,  it  will  pass  some  law  which  will 
regulate  whatever  evil  there  may  be  in  this  matter.  I  there- 
fore ask  you  to  vote  against  the  resolution,  and  to  say  it  is 
inexpedient  to  recommend  its  adoption. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — In  order  to  bring  this  matter  into 
such  shape  that  we  may  dispose  of  all  these  resolutions,  I  have 
prepared  a  resolution  which  I  desire  to  substitute  for  the 
resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler. 

The  Chairman — The  gentleman  from  Franklin,  Mr.  Leach, 
moves  that  the  following  be  substituted  for  the  resolution  of 
the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler: 

"Resolved,  That  the  committee  rise  and  report  to  the  Con- 
vention, with  a  recommendation  that  the  legislature  consider 
the  subject  of  free  passes  and  enact  such  legislation,  if  any,  as 
the  public  good  requires." 

Mr.  S.  W.  Emery  of  Portsmouth — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gen- 
tlemen, of  the  Convention:  I  promise  you  that  this  is  the  last 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  751 

time  I  shall  trouble  you  during  the  session  of  this  Conven- 
tion. 

I  do  happen  to  be  counsel  for  a  great  many  railroad  cor- 
porations of  this*  state,  but  I  am  not  here  as  their  attorney, 
and  I  do  not  care  what  position  they  take  upon  this  question. 
Here  I  am  not  their  man,  but  my  own. 

Now,  gentlemen,  this  legislature,  as  we  call  it,  of  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire  is  one  of  our  courts.  We  have  a  supreme 
court,  and  we  have  a  superior  court,  and  we  have  a  general 
•court,,  and  that  is  the  legislature.  There  is  one  suitor  before 
that  court  that  is  there  at  every  session  of  the  legislature,  and 
that  is  the  great  railroad  system  of  this  state,  the  Boson  & 
Maine  railroad.  It  is  before  every  legislature,  interested  in 
legislation  for  itself,  and  asking  that  such  legislation  be 
passed.  How  many  of  you,  if  you  had  a  case  against  the  Bos- 
ton &  Maine  railroad  to  be  tried  before  a  jury,  would  try  it 
before  a  jury  whose  pockets  were  filled  with  passes?  Do  you 
think  you  would  get  fair,  equitable,  and  honest  treatment? 
If  you  had  a  case  to  be  heard  before  the  supreme  court  of 
this  state,  where  your  dearest  rights  were  at  stake,  would  you 
feel  hopeful  of  getting  justice  if  every  one  of  those  judges  sat 
there  with  his  pass  from,  the  Boston  &  Maine  railroad  in 
his  pocket?  Is  that  American?  Is  that  fair? 

The  Republicans  had  a  Convention  when  Frank  W.  Rollins 
was  nominated  for  governor,  and  they  referred  this  matter  to 
the  legislature  to  act  upon,  and  you  know  how  much  it  did  in 
that  direction.  The  next  legislature,  gentlemen,  not  only  did 
nothing  to  abate  this  evil,  but  they  put  into  a  law  already  ex- 
isting the  broadest  right,  the  broadest  privilege,  to  the  rail- 
roads to  give  passes  to  everybody,  and  referred  the  matter  to 
us.  The  next  legislature,  and  the  next  legislature,  will  be 
composed  of  members  who  will  have  free  passes  in  their 
pockets,  and  they  will  pass  this  matter  by  as  the  legislators  in 
the  past  have  already  done,  and  the  people  will  get  no  relief. 

Is  there  any  reason  why  there  should  be  a  distinction  be- 
tween the  general  court,  between  those  who  come  here  and 
grant  franchises  to  those  railroads  and  give  other  rights  to  the 


752    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

railroads,  from  the  people — is  there  any  reason  why  there 
should  be  any  distinction  between  that  court  and  the  other 
courts  of  the  state? 

Why  do  I  favor  Mr.  Chandler's  resolution  ?  For  the  reason 
tihat  it  carries  its  teeth  right  in  it,  and  it  makes  it  a  crime  for 
a  legislator,  or  an  officer  of  the  state,  to  carry  a  free  pass  in 
his  pocket.  As  long  as  we  insist  that  judges  shall  not  take 
presents  from  parties  who  are  before  them  in  litigation,  just 
so  long  we  need  this  amendment,  so  that  legislators  can  not 
take  gifts  from  corporations  coming  to  them  for  favors. 

I  shall  say  no-tiling  of  what  has  been  done  in  the  past;  but 
I  say  that  this  free-pass-giving  ought  not  to  be  allowed  in  the 
future,  and  if  it  is  to  be  allowed  in,  the  future,  God  save  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  for  its  citizens  have  lost  all  sense  of 
honor! 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Comcord — I  have  no  desire  to  detain  th& 
members  of  the  Constitutional  Convention,  keeping  them  un- 
necessarily from  going  to  their  homes,  by  any  mode  of  trans- 
portation which  they  may  choose  to  adopt,  but  I  do  desire,  and 
shall  endeavor  to  have,  a  call  of  the  yeas  and  nays  on  this 
question.  The  people  are  not  going  to  be  deceived.  This 
question  was  taken  up  in  two>  state  conventions,  and  both 
parties  instructed  its  representatives  what  to  do  in  the  next 
legislature.  There  was  a  refusal  to  do  that  duty  by  a  vote  of 
292  to  22,  and  it  was  refused  oil  the  ground  that  a  Constitu- 
tional Convention  was  necessary  in  order  to  deal  with  this 
great  evil.  Now,  Mr.  Chairman,  we  are  in  a  Constitutional 
Convention  and  are  told  it  is  for  the  legislature  to  deal  with 
it.  I  ask  for  the  yeas  and  nays  on  my  resolution,  and  I  am 
quite  sure  the  people  will  not  be  deceived. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — The  statute  expressly  provides  that 
the  salaries  of  our  railroad  commissioners  shall  be  paid  by  the 
railroads  and  not  by  the  state,  and  therefore  I  think  my 
friend  from  Portsmouth,  Mr.  Emery,  is  a  little  off  in  his  rea- 
soning on  the  ground  that  the  legislature  is  a  court  and  there- 
fore should  not  take  passes  from  a  party  before  it. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  753 

I  also  think  my  friend  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  is 
wrong.  In  the  first  place — he  tells  us  that  he  voted  against 
the  calling  of  a  Constitutional  Convention.  I  take  it  that  at 
that  time  he  thought  there  was  no  particular  reason  for  chang- 
ing the  Constitution  in  this  respect, -or  a  sufficient  reason  for 
calling  a  Constitutional  Convention  to  do  it.  He  tells  us 
again  that  there  is  great  danger  that  if  we  adopt  so  many 
amendments  the  people  will  not  ratify  them,  and  refers  us  to 
the  example  of  an  earlier  coowention  where  that  very  thing 
happened.  We  have  already  adopted  more  amendments  than 
that  convention  did,  and  unless  there  is  some  crying  demand 
for  further  amendments,  it  seems  to  me  we  have  gone  far 
enough,  and  it  is  a  good  place  to  stop. 

He  has  introduced  an  amendment  that  in  future  amend- 
ments of  the  Constitution  the  matter  should  be  referred  to 
two  succeeding  legislatures,  and  if  they  should  find  in  favor 
of  an  amendment,  then  it  should  go  to  the  people.  Now  if  my 
friend's  theory  is  correct,  that  the  legislature  is  the  proper 
body  to  consider  what  should  be  the  constitutional  amend- 
ments and  frame  them  for  ratification  by  the  people,  then  that 
body  is  the  proper  body  to  leave  the  matter  of  free  passes  to. 
It  seems  to  me  it  is  a  question  of  legislation.  We  are  not  here 
to  make  up  a  moral  code,  but  we  are  here  to  see  what  amend- 
ments there  should  be  to  the  Constitution,  and  that  alone. 

Here  there  are  three  or  four  different  propositions,  and  it 
seems  to  me  the  only  reasonable  thing  to  do  is  to  let  the  legis- 
lature take  care  of  this.  It  is  not  a  matter  that  belongs  to  a 
Constitutional  Convention. 

It  seems  to  me,  also,  that  this  creates  a  reflection  upon 
every  member  of  this  body  who  has  ridden  on  free  passes,  and 
every  member  of  the  legislatures  who  has  ridden  on  free 
passes  for  the  last  twenty-five  or  thirty  years.  I  do  not  think 
that  the  members  of  this  Convention  are  going  to  feel  they  are 
doing  anything  wrong,  anything  that  ought  to  be  prohibited 
by  an  amendment  of  the  constitutional  law,  in  taking  these 
free  passes.  Certainly  the  railroad  is  not  here  asking  for  any 
favors.  The  only  resolution  I  have  heard  in  any  way  in  favor 
48 


754    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

of  the  railroad  is  the  resolution  introduced  by  the  gentleman 
from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  and  the  other  resolution  of  like 
character,  prohibiting  the  use  of  free  passes.  Such  an  amend- 
ment, or  such  legislation,  as  that  would  be  of  practical  benefit 
to  the  Boston  &  Maine  railroad,  and  all  these  other  railroads, 
to  an  amount  of  I  don't  know  how  much,  but  I  take  it  to  the 
extent  of  twenty-five  or  thirty  thousand  dollars  a  year.  Are 
there  any  other  matters  before  this  Convention  that  you  can 
conceive  of  that  the  railroads  have  any  interest  in  in  any  way? 
I  think  the  reasonable  thing  to  do  is  to  refer  this  whole 
matter  to  the  legislature,  the  body  to  which  Mr.  Chandler  has 
been  in  favor  of  referring  all  constitutional  amendments. 

Mr.  Wingate  of  Stratham — I  hope  that  the  Convention 
will  adopt  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Chandler,  and  I  will  tell  the  gentlemeni  of  the  Convention 
why  I  do  not  believe  in  free  passes.  Many  years  ago,  when  I 
was  a  very  young  man,  I  heard  Ira  Perley  talking  with  a  gen- 
tleman, and  he  said  that  when  he  was  appointed  judge  he  re- 
fused all  offers  of  free  passes,  he  did  not  think  that  a  judge 
of  a  court  should  take  a  pass.  That  strongly  influenced  my 
mind  at  that  time,  and  I  have  seen  no  reason  since  to  change 
the  view  that  I  obtained!  by  overhearing  that  conversation. 
This  year,  when  I  received  my  pass,  I  sent  it  back  and  gave 
my  reasons  why  I  did  so.  At  another  time  when  I  received  a 
pass  from  the  road  to  come  to  the  legislature,  I  did  the  same, 
but  this  year  I  gave1  an  added  reason,  and  that  was,  that  is  was 
probable  that  this  Convention  would  have  under  considera- 
tion the  question  of  free  passes,  and  when  we  were  considering 
a  question  of  this  kind  I  certainly  did  not  want  any  pass  in 
my  pocket,  I  believe  that  it  is  important  that  we  should  re- 
gard our  reputations  as  men  and  individuals,  and  the  honor  of 
the  state,  by  the  passage  of  some  such  resolution  as  this.  "VVe 
who  are  here,  above  all  others,  ought  to  be  careful  of  our  repu- 
tations. 

Mr.  Hadley  of  Temple — I  rise  out  of  a  sense  of  justice,  or 
injustice.  I  am  a  member  of  this  Convention,  as  you  all  know, 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  755 

and  come  here  on  a  free  pass.  If  it  were  not  for  the  free  pass 
I  would  not  have  money  enough  out  of  this  scrape  to  go  back 
and  forth.  I  was  a  member  of  the  house  in  1895,  and  I  rode 
back  and  forth  on  a  pass  at  that  time.  I  was  not  owned  by 
any  road,  and  was  working  and  voting  all  through  the  session 
in  favor  of  the  Manchester  &  Milford  railroad. 

I  do  not  believe  there  is  any  need  of  giving  the  Boston  & 
Maine  railroad  a  slap  in  the  face  because  they  are  considerate 
enough  to  help  out  the  state  of  New  Hampshire  by  giving  the 
members  of  the  legislature  and  of  this  Convention  free  passes. 

I  do  wish  to  say  that  the  Boston  &  Maine  railroad  has  greatly 
benefited  the  grange  in  New  Hampshire,  not  so  much  in  the 
free  pass  line,  as  by  giving  us  concessions  to  our  fairs  and 
state  grange  meetings^  and  this  is  a  measure  against  all  such 
reduction  of  rates,  or  concessions.  I  also  want  to  say  this,  too, 
out  of  justice  to  this  same  railroad,  I  want  to  say  publicly  that 
the  patrons  of  New  Hampshire  appreciate  the  courtesies  ex- 
tended to  that  body  by  means  of  which  we  have  attained  such 
prosperity  as  we  could  not  have  attained  in  any  other  way 
except  by  these  concessions  and  the  encouragement  that  we 
have  received  from  them,  and  I  wish  to/  extend  the  sincere 
thanks  of  this  organization  to  the  railroad  in  this  public  man- 
ner for  their  many  courtesies. 

Mr.  Niles  of  Concord — Mr.  Chairman  and  Gentlemen  of  the 
Committee:  I  feel  very  strongly  that  tihe  delegates,  in  con- 
sidering this  matter  from  a  theoretical  standpoint,  are  in 
danger  of  overlooking  the  broad  fundamental  basis  of  fact  un- 
derlying the  fabric  of  our  government,  without  a  due  appre- 
ciation of  which  we  cannot  adequately  pass  upon  the  merits 
of  this  question. 

There  is  an  apparent  disposition  to  dwell  with,  perhaps,  un- 
due insistence  upon  the  theory  upon  which  our  government 
purports  to  be  established,  that  all  men  are  created  free  and 
equal,  and  that  the  real  reposition  of  power  and  responsibility 
is  to  be  found  in  the  people  of  the  state  as  a  mass,  rattier  than 
in  any  specially  favored  or  specially  burdened  few.  When  we 


756     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

fervently  declare  that  all  just  government  rests  upon  the  con- 
sent of  the  governed,  we  forget  the  correlative  proposition, 
that  a  government,  which  does  in  fact  rest  upon  the  consent  of 
the  governed,  is  necessarily,  in  the  nature  of  things,  a  just 
government.  Did  we  bear  this  latter  principle  clearly  in 
mind,  we  would  at  once  appreciate  the  necessity  of  going  a 
step  farther,  and  considering  what  form  of  government  does 
at  the  present  day,  in  New  Hampshire,  in  fact,  rest  upon  the 
consent  of  the  governed. 

Lincoln,  speaking  from  the  theoretical  standpoint,  declared, 
in  the  spirit;  of  prophecy,  that  "Government  of  the  people,  by 
the  people,  and  for  the  people,  shall  not  perish  from  the 
earth."  But  prophecy  is  one  of  the  most  dangerous  things  in 
which  man  can  indulge.  The  remarkable  coincidences  be- 
tween New  Testament  facts  and  Old  Testament  prophecies  are 
so  unparalleled  in  human  experience  as  to  be  regarded  as 
one  of  the  strongest  arguments  in  support  of  the  position  that 
the  prophets  of  the  old  dispensation  were  guided  in  their  pre- 
dictions by  some  power  above  their  own  unaided  wish  and 
imagination. 

Lincoln,  however,  laid  claim  to  no  such  superhuman  guid- 
ance. He  was  simply  an  officer  employed  and  paid  by  the  gov- 
ernment, which  employs  and  pays  weather  prophets. 

We  therefore  have  the  right,  and  it  is  our  duty,  to  inquire 
closely  into  existing  conditions,  and  ascertain  whether  his  pre- 
diction finds  fulfilment  in  the  facts  as  we  see  them. 

I  do  not  noiw  desire  to  express  any  opinion  as  to  those  facts, 
but  I  feel  it  my  duty  to  call  attention  to  the  proposition  some- 
times advanced,  and,  curiously  enough,  by  strenuous  advo- 
cates of  this  radical  and  drastic  measure, — that  government 
of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the  people,  has,  in  fact, 
to  some  extent,  perished  from  the  earth,  so  far  at  least  as  New 
Hampshire  is  concerned,  and  that  there  has  been  established 
here,  by  the  apparent  consent  of  the  governed,  a  government 
of  the  people,  l>y  the  railroads,  and  for  the  railroads. 

Again  note,  that  upon  the  question  of  fact  involved,  I  now 
express  no  opinion,  either  as  to  whether  such  a  government 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  757 

actually  exists,  or  whether  it  has  received  the  consent  of  the 
governed. 

But  if  it  does  so  exist,  we  are  confronted  by  the  grave  ques- 
tion whether  we  shall  obstinately  adhere  to  and  attempt  to 
realize  the  theories  of  Lincoln,  or  shall  regard  it  as  our  own 
duty  to  disown  the  de  jure  government,  existing  only  'on 
paper,  or  in  the  imagination  of  doctrinaire  enthusiasts,  and 
yield  our  ungrudging  allegiance  to  the  de  facto  government, 
just  because  resting  on  the  consent  of  the  governed. 

Only  the  most  misguided  zealot,  recognizing  the  existence 
of  such  a  de  facto  government,  could  fail  to  appreciate  the  rev- 
olutionary character  of  the  measure  under  consideration, 
whose  only  intent  is  to  hamper  the  de  facto  government  in  the 
exercise  of  its  executive,  legislative,  and  judicial  functions. 

We  all  understand  Lincoln's  theory  of  government,  but  a 
prophet  is  not  without  honor,  save  in  his  own  country.  And 
this  is  Lincoln's  country.  An  then,  Lincoln  is  dead. 

And  the  wise  man  tells  us  that  "A  cur  dog  is  better  than  a 
dead  lion."  Ought  we,  then,  to  allow  the  memory  of  the 
majestic  roar  of  the  now  dead  lion  to  dull  our  ears  to  the  in- 
sistent barking  of  the  living  dog,  to  whom  men  say  we  must 
look  for  our  enjoyment  of  the  blessings  of  life,  liberty,  and  the 
pursuit  of  happiness?  Shall  we  muzzle  our  protector? 

If  the  experience  of  the  past  has  demonstrated  that  the 
judicious  use  of  free  passes  aids  it  in  the  performance  of  its 
governmental  functions,  that  without  their  aid  executive,  leg- 
islative, and  judicial  hot-boxes  are  inevitable,  and  passes 
surely  would  not  be  employed  if  they  were  not  found  service- 
able; to  hold  otherwise  would  be  to  cast  doubt  upon  the  wis- 
dom and  judgment  of  those  who  dispense  them.  If  this  is  so, 
of  what  stupendous  folly  would  we  be  guilty,  should  we  com- 
pel them  to  run  the  complicated  machinery  of  government 
without  grease?  And  this  is  just  what  Mr.  Chandler's  resolu- 
tion contemplates. 

On  the  other  hand,  how  can  we  defend  ourselves  before  our 
constituents,  if  we  compel  them  to  apply  passes  with  lavish 
profusion,  where  their  experienced  judgment  shows  them 


758     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

that  they  would  be  wasted,  to  daub  the  whole  machinery  of 
government  with  grease,  to  the  great  waste  of  grease,  and  the 
unseemingly  defilement  and  disfigurement  of  costly  portions 
olf  the  machinery  designed  solely  for  ornamental  purposes. 
And  this  would  be  the  result  of  adopting  the  amendment 
proposed  by  Mr.  Kogers. 

Either  of  these  measures,  admitting  the  existence  of  such  a 
form  of  government,  would  be  nothing  less  than  revolu- 
tionary. 

But  the  Constitution  of  New  Hampshire,  in  article  ten  of 
the  Bill  of  Eights,  contains  the  following  startling  proposi- 
tion: 

"Government  being  instituted  for  the  common  benefit,  pro- 
tection, and  security  of  the  whole  community,  and  not  for  the 
private  interest  or  emolument  of  any  one  man,  family,  or  class 
of  men,  therefore,  whenever  the  ends  of-  government  are  per- 
verted, and  public  liberty  manifestly  endangered,  and  all  other 
means  of  redress  are  ineffectual,  the  people  may,  and  of  right 
ought  to,  reform  the  old  or  establish  a  new  government.  The 
doctrine  of  non-resistance  against  arbitrary  power  and  op- 
pression is  absurd,  slavish,  and  destructive  of  the  good  and 
happiness  of  mankind." 

This  article  clearly  declares  the  right  and  enjoins  the  duty 
of  revolution  "whenever  the  ends  of  government  are  perverted 
and  public  liberty  manifestly  endangered."  The  possible  rev- 
olutionary character  of  this  measure  is,  therefore,  not  con- 
clusive against  the  propriety  of  its  adoption. 

There  are  some,  who,  believing  that  such  a  de  facto  govern- 
ment as  I  have  described  is  in  actual  operation,  yet  hold,  and 
frankly  declare,  that  they  regard  such  a  state  of  things  as  de- 
sirable and  conducive  to  the  best  interests  of  the  community; 
that  the  people  are  incapable  of  governing  themselves,  and 
need  the  guidance  of  a  strong  and  resolute  hand;  and  that  any 
change  in  the  existing  state  of  affairs  would  be  nothing  less 
than  a  public  calamity.  Persons  holding  those  views,  if  such 
there  are  in  this  Convention,  would  of  course  oppose  Mr. 
Chandler's  resolution,  because  of  its  injuriously  revolutionary 
character. 


THUKSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  759 

Others,  while  recognizing  the  fact  that  Lincoln's  theory  of 
government  still  prevails  in  this  state,  are  of  opinion  that  a 
change  would  be  beneficial.  Such  persons,  realizing  that  the 
principle  of  the  equality  of  every  man  before  the  law  is  prac- 
tically unrecognized  outside  of  America,  deem  it  unwise  for  us 
to  hold  aloof  from  our  sister  nations,  and  would  welcome  also 
as  advance  in  civilization  any  step  which  would  place  us  on  a 
more  nearly  equal  footing  with  them.  Such  persons,  if  any 
there  are  in  this  Convention,  would  oppose  Mr.  Chandler's 
resolution  as  a  dangerous  obstacle  in  the  path  of  progress 
toward  the  attainment  of  higher  ideals. 

Those,  on  the  other  hand,  who  believe  that  such  a  govern- 
ment does  in  fact  exist,  and  that  thereby  "the  ends  of  govern- 
ment are  perverted  and  public  liberty  manifestly  endangered," 
will  naturally  feel  that  the  circumstances  are  such  as  to  de- 
mand the  exercise  of  their  constitutional  right  of  revolution. 
Such  persons,  if  any  there  are  in  this  Convention,  will  of 
course  vote  for  the  adoption  of  Mr.  Chandler's  resolution. 

For  myself,  I  cannot  approve  of  the  suggestion  of  Mr. 
Eogers,  that  the  giving  of  passes  to  all  state  officials  should  be 
made  compulsory.  Such  a  measure  would  have  too  close  a  re- 
semblance to  the  statute  compelling  the  railroads  to  pay  the 
salaries  of  the  railroad  commissioners,  a  statute  which,  while 
in  no  way  capable  of  improperly  influencing  the  commission- 
ers in  the  performance  of  their  duties,  unjustly  places  them 
in  the  uncomfortable  position  of  seeming  to  be  in  some  way 
the  beneficiaries  of  the  railroads.  The  state  can  surely  afford 
to  pay  the  salaries  and  expenses  of  all  its  officers;  it  cannot 
afford  not  to  do  so. 

Believing,  as  I  do,  that  Lincoln's  theory  of  government  has 
not,  in  fact,  been  abandoned  in  this  state,  and  a  new  form  of 
government  established,  with  the  consent  of  the  governed, 
and  that  such  an  event  would  be  a  most  deplorable  perversion 
of  the  ends  of  government  and  would  manifestly  endanger  the 
public  liberty,  I  shall  feel  it  my  duty  to  vote  for  the  adoption 
of  Mr.  Chandler's  resolution;  and  others  who  feel  as  I  do  will 
take  the  same  course.  In  so  voting,  they  will  not  necessarily 


760     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

declare  their  belief  that  any  attempt  to  pervert  our  liberty  has 
been  made,  or  is  contemplated.  But  they  will  be  declaring  in 
concrete  form  their  intense  conviction  that  the  doctrine  of  the 
inherited  equality  of  all  men  before  the  law  survives  in  all 
its  original  force  in  this  state,  and  should  survive,  and  that 
government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for  the  people 
has  not  perished,  and  must  not  perish  from  the  earth.  And 
the  people  will  understand  the  spirit  of  the  amendment,  and 
will  welcome  with  enthusiasm  the  opportunity  to  ratify  it  at 
the  polls. 

And  I  am  sure  that  in  no  other  way  can  we  so  effectively 
dispel  the  general  suspicion  under  which  this  body  must  rest 
by  reason  of  the  distribution  of  passes  to  its  members.  In  no 
other  way  can  the  delegates  so-  clearly  and  forcibly  demon- 
strate the  fact  that  they  are  not  susceptible  to  such  influences. 
A  vote  against  the  further  issuing  of  such  passes  will  satisfy 
the  people  of  the  state  that,  whatever  their  influences  upon 
legislators  and  public  officers  generally,  the  virtue  of  this  body 
cannot  be  bought,  at  any  rate,  at  so  cheap  a  price. 

Mr.  McAllister  of  Manchester— I  do  not  propose  at  this 
time  to  trespass  upon  your  patience,  for  we  are  all  anxious  to 
finish  our  business  and  go  home;  but  I  do  wish  to  say  that  I 
am  heartily  and  earnestly  in  favor  of  the  amendment  proposed 
by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler.  I  believe  it 
is  an  amendment  calculated  to  benefit  the  people  and  promote 
their  welfare. 

Gentlemen,  railroads  do  not  give  passes  to  the  members  of 
the  legislature  unless  they  expect  something  in  return.  They 
come  to  the  legislature  for  favors,  and  it  is  wrong  that  they 
should  be  permitted  to  make  a  present  to  each  member  of  the 
legislature  equal  to  his  railroad  fare  during  the  session.  I  am 
in  favor  of  the  adoption  of  the  proposed  amendment  to  the 
Constitution,  which  will  make  it  impossible  for  a  railroad  cor- 
poration to  influence  the  members  of  the  legislature  or  of  a 
Constitutional  Convention,  in  its  favor,  by  giving  railroad 
passes  tjo  them. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  761 

Mr.  Howe  of  ConcoTd — I  have  but  a  single  word  that  I  care 
to  say  upon  this  subject.  I  voted  this  morning  against  the 
declaration  against  trusts  and  I  did  it  because  I  did  not  think 
it  was  a  constitutional  subject,  but  a  legislative  subject,  and 
Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  I  am  of  the  same  opinion  on 
this  subject.  I  hold  this  is  a  subject  for  the  legislature  and 
not  for  a  Constitutional  Convention,  and  I  hope  the  pro- 
posed amendment  of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr. 
Chandler,  will  not  be  adopted. 

The  Chairman — Gentleman,  the  question  is,  shall  the  reso- 
lution offered  by  Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin  be  substituted  for  the 
resolution  offered  by  Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord,  and  on  that 
question  a  division  is  called  for. 

Upon  division  the  chair  declared  that  101  gentlemen  voted 
in  the  affirmative  and  ninety-seven  gentlemen  voted  in  the 
negative. 

Mr.  Little  of  Manchester — I  rise  to  a  point  of  order.  There 
is  no  quorum  present. 

The  Chairman — The  point  is  well  taken. 

In  Convention. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Madden  of  Keene,  chairman  of  the  Committee  of  the 
Whole,  reported  that  the  committee  had  been  in  session,  hav- 
ing had  under  consideration  the  various  resolutions  relating  to 
free  passes,  and  no  quorum  being  present  the  committee  arose. 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth  moved  that  the  Convention 
adjourn. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord  called  for  a  division.     And  112 


762    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  affirmative,  and  twenty-eight 
gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  negative,  the  Convention  was 
declared  adjourned. 

EVENING. 

The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 
(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department,  to  whom  was  recommitted  the  amendment 
of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  relating  to  voting  precincts,  reported  the 
same  in  the  accompanying  new  draft  with  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  amendment  in  the  new  draft  be 
adopted." 

New  Draft. 

"The  legislature  shall  have  full  power  and  authority  to 
establish  more  than  one  place  of  public  meeting  within  the 
limits  of  any  town  or  ward  in  the  state  for  the  casting,  count- 
ing, declaring,  and  returning  of  votes,  and  the  election  of 
officers  under  the  Constitution;  to  prescribe  the  manner  of 
warning,  holding,  and  conducting  such  meetings,  and  for  that 
purpose  may  divide  any  town  or  ward  into  voting  precincts." 

The  report  was  accepted,  and  the  resolution  adopted. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  the  resolution  offered  by 
Mr.  Clyde  of  Hudson  in  relation  to  representation  and  initia- 
tive and  referendum,  was  indefinitely  postponed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth,  the  resolution 
offered  by  him  relating  to  the  incompatibility  of  certain 
offices,  together  with  the  report  of  the  committee  thereon,  was 
taken  from  the  table. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  763 

On  motion  of  the  same  gentleman,  the  proposed  amendment 
was  indefinitely  postponed. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — As  a  peaceful  delegate,  I  ask 
unanimous  consent  that  the  proposition  relative  to  free  passes 
on  railroads,  made  by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  Mr. 
Leach,  be  voted  upon,  to-morrow  at  12  o'clock.  The  proposi- 
tion which  the  gentleman  from  Franklin  makes  is  against  the 
various  propositions  which  have  been  submitted  for  amending 
the  Constitution,  so  that  free  passes  cannot  be  issued,  and  is 
the  one  on  which  I  think  the  friends  of  free  passes  would  de- 
sire to  vote;  on  a  call  for  the  yeas  and  nays,  and  anticipating 
that  desire  I  will  state  now  that  when  the  matter  comes  up  for 
final  action  I  will  call  for  a  yea  and  nay  vote  of  this  Conven- 
tion on  that  very  important  subject. 

The  President — If  the  gentleman  from  Concord  should 
make  a  motion  that  the  vote  be  taken  at  12  o'clock,  and  the 
motion  is  adapted  unanimously,  in  that  way  he  would  get  the 
special  order  he  desires. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — If  I  should  make  that  motion  I 
am  afraid  somebody  would  vote  against  it.  I  make  the  mo- 
tion, however,  that  a  vote  be  taken  by  yeas  and  nays  tomorrow 
at  12  oi'clock,  on  the  motion  of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin, 
Mr.  Leach,  relative  to  free  passes. 

The  motion  of  Mr.  Chandler  is  stated  and  declared  adopted.. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  will  not  do  as  my  friend  from 
Somersworth  did  when  he  was  afraid  that  some  one  would 
object  to  coming  back  here  this  week, — ask  whether  there  is 
any  such  individual,  and  if  so  ask  him  to>  rise.  I  suppose  the 
gentleman  from  Somersworth  meant  to  say  that  if  that  partic- 
ular individual  would  come  back  again  another  week  he  would 
pay  the  gentleman  from  his  own  pocket,  but  the  gentleman 
from  Somersworth  did  not  make  any  such  liberal  offer. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — No  one  stood  up. 


764     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  offer  a  resolution  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  the  Tim©  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People 
the  Amendments  Agreed  toi  by  the  Convention,  which  I  desire 
to  have  read  and  considered,  and  perhaps  adopted,  but  not 
acted  upon  until  to-morrow  afternoon.  This  is  with  reference 
to  the  time  when  the  popular  election  shall  be  held  when  the 
amendments  made  by  this  Convention  shall  be  voted  upon. 
It  reads  as  follows: 

"I.  Resolved,  That  the  alterations  and  amendments  pro- 
posed to  the  Constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  state,  at  meetings  which  shall  be  duly  called  and 
held  in  the  several  towns,  wards  of  cities,  and  other  places  in 
the  state  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March,  1903,  to  be  by  said 
voters  acted  upon  atl  said  meetings,  or  any  adjournments 
thereof  within  the  same  week. 

"II.  Resolved,  That  the  selectmen  of  the  several  towns, 
wards,  and  places  in  the  state  be  and  are  hereby  directed  to 
insert,  in  their  warrants  calling  the  said  meetings,  an  article 
to  the  following  effect:  'To  take  the  sense  of  the  qualified 
voters  whether  the  alterations  and  amendments  of  the  Con- 
stitution proposed  by  the  Constitutional  Convention  shall  be 
.approved/  '• 

Mr.  President,  the  committee,  or  those  members  of  it  who 
were  present  to-day,  and  I  think  all  but  four  were  present, 
were  divided  in  opinion  as  to  when  these  amendments  should 
be  voted  upon.  Two  or  three  members  were  in  favor  of  de- 
laying the  submission  until  a  year  from  next  November  at  the 
presidential  election,  because,  they  said,  that  would  be  the 
only  time  when  there  could  be  secured  a  full  vote  of  the  peo- 
ple of  the  state.  This  time  was  naturally  enough  objected  to 
because  it  was  thought  by  some  that  it  was  too  far  off,  and 
that  the  people  would  not  only  forget  the  Convention  (per- 
haps it  woiuld  be  desirable  that  they  should  do  that)  but  they 
would  forget  the  amendments  themselves,  and  they  would 
have  to  be  brought  to  public  view  and  called  to  the  attention 
of  the  people  again  in  order  to  get  them  to  take  sufficient  in- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  765 

terest  to  vote  upon  them  at  the  election.  So,  on  the  whole, 
only  three  or  four  members  of  the  committee  could  bring 
themselves  to  advise  that  such  a  time  should  be  selected. 

The  majority  of  the  committee  were  in  favor  of  the  second 
Tuesday  of  March  next.  The  advantages  are  that  the  towns 
hold  their  town-meetings  at  that  time,  and  although  it  would 
be  necessary  for  the  cities  to  hold  special  elections  it  would 
not  be  necessary  for  the  towns  to  hold  special  elections,  and 
those  inhabitants  who  desired  to  vote  upon  the  amendments 
might  do  so  at  their  annual  town-meeting. 

The  objections  to  submitting  the  amendments  next  March 
were  stated  in  this  way:  that  whereas  a  year  from  next  Novem- 
ber is  too  long  a  time;,  the  second  Tuesday  of  March  gives  too 
short  a  time.  We  are  submitting,  Mr.  President  and  gentle- 
men, very  important  amendments  to  the  people  of  this  state 
—the  amendment  to  change  the  method  of  taxation  is  im- 
portant, and  above  all,  perhaps,  in  its  importance,  is  the  re- 
quirement of  the  educational  qualification  for  suffrage.  The 
change  in  the  basis  of  representation,  which  was  adopted  this 
afternoon  by  so  narrow  a  majority,  is  a  matter  of  great  im- 
portance, and  should  be  fully  understood  by  the  people,  and 
they  should  vote  upon  it  with  deliberation.  And  certainly  the 
women  of  the  state  should  have  their  cause  fully  and  amply 
championed  before  the  people  prior  to  voting  thereon.  So  it 
was  contended  by  several  of  the  gentlemen,  and  it  was  appre- 
ciated by  all,  that  January  and  February  would  give  hardly 
time  enough;  for  the  education  of  the  people  upon  these  very 
important  matters. 

Therefore  the  members  of  the  committee  were  really  in  a 
quandary,  those  who*  were  present,  to  know  how  to  act  under 
the  circumstances.  The  majority  of  the  committee  instructed 
me  to  report  this  resolution,  with  the  statement  that  I  am 
now  making,  and  a  request  that  the  Convention  will  decide.  I, 
therefore,  have  taken  a  few  minutes  at  this  time  to  present 
the  question,  but  as  there  are  trains  now  leaving,  and  some 
of  the  delegates  may  be  going,  it  may  not  be  well  to  act  now, 
but  I  think  we  can  give  consideration  to  it,  as  the  committee 


766     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

would  not  like  to  make  a  report  which  would  not  be  accepted 
by  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — Was  a  year  from  next  March  con- 
sidered? 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — A  year  from  next  March  was 
not  thought  of.  But  this  was  thought  of — a  gentleman  from 
one  of  the  country  towns  suggested  it — that  there  might  be  a 
special  election  some  Saturday,  either  in  the  latter  part  of 
September  or  October  next.  It  was  thought  that  would  give 
about  the  right  time  for  the  discussion  of  the  amendments 
proposed  by  the  Convention.  The  objection  was  understood 
toi  be  the  necessity  of  having  special  elections  on  this  subject 
in  every  town  and  ward  in  the  state.  I  do  not  believe  any 
one  suggested  it  would  be  wise  to  submit  the  amendments  a 
year  from  the  coming  March. 

Mr.  Daley  of  Berlin — I  understand  there  are  four  cities  in 
the  state  which  hold  their  elections  in  March.  If  I  am  wrong 
about  this  I  should  like  to  be  corrected.  I  think  the  city  of 
Portsmouth,  the  city  of  Somersworth,  the  city  of  Laconia, 
and  the  city  of  Berlin  are  the  four.  I  understand  these  four 
cities  hold  annual  meetings  in  March.  That  would  leave,  as  I 
understand  it,  seven  cities  in  the  state,  including  the  large 
city  of  Manchester,  which  would  be  under  the  necessity  of 
holding  special  elections  if  these  amendments  were  submitted 
on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March  next.  Personally  I  favor  the 
submission  of  the  amendments  at  this  time,  inasmuch  as  it 
favors  my  own  city.  It  seems  to  me  that  it  is  the  proper  thing 
to  do  any  way,  in  view  of  the  fact  that  all  the  towns  in  the 
state  hold  their  elections  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March, 
•and  four  cities  of  the  state  hold  their  elections  on  the  same 
day,  so  that  the  special  elections  would  be  necessary  only  in 
seven  cities  of  the  state. 

With  reference  to  the  matter  of  discussion,  the  people  of 
the  state  will  have  a  general  knowledge  of  the  subject  by  rea- 
son of  the  reports  of  this  Convention,  and  will  be  better  pre- 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  767 

pared  to  vote  upon  the  question  in  Maxell  than  at  any  other 
possible  time.  Great  interest  is  being  manifested  in  the  Con- 
vention which  we  are  attending,  and  as  a  result  there  could  be 
no  better  or  moire  effective  information  than  that  which  is 
going  out  from  this  Convention  to  the  people. 

It  has  been  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord  that 
perhaps  it  might  be  well  if  the  people  should  forget  this  Con- 
vention. I  don't  think  so.  I  think  it  is  well  for  the  people  to 
remember  this  Convention,  and  I  think  further,  by  remem- 
bering it  they  will  remember  what  has  taken  place  and  will 
rememb-er  the  discussions  oni  these  different  amendments. 

For  these  reasons  I  believe  the  vote  on  matters  which 
are  to  be  submitted  ought  to  take  place  on  the  second  Tues- 
day of  March  next. 

Mr.  Craig  of  Marlow — I  represent  one  of  the  towns  of  the 
state,  and  I  think  the  election  for  voting  upon  these  amend- 
ments ought  to  be  held  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March. 
The  towns  holding  their  town-meetings  upon  that  day  cover 
a  large  section  of  the  state,  and  if  a  special  election  should  be 
held  it  should  be  in  the  cities,  as  it  is  more  convenient  for 
them  to  hold  elections  than  in  the  country  towns  throughout 
the  state. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — I  have  no  motion  to  make  to-night 
in  this  connection.  I  understand  that  we  hardly  want  to  risk 
taking  a  vote  here  which  might  disclose  the  absence  of  a 
quorum,  but  rather  we  are  talking  over  this  matter  in  an  in- 
formal way  to  get  the  sense  of  the  Convention  for  the  action 
of  the  committee. 

There  is  much  toi  be  said,  perhaps,  both  ways.  The  only 
times  suggested  are  the  second  Tuesday  in  March  next,  which 
really  is  prettty  quick  after  the  close  of  the  Convention,  and 
the  other  time  is  a  year  from  next  November,  which  is  a  long 
way  off.  I  would  suggest  this,  for  the  purpose  of  calling  forth 
suggestions  from  other  members,  whether  it  would  not  be  well 
for  the  committee,  in  considering  this  part  of  their  report,  to 


768     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

consider  a  year  from  next  March.  If  next  March  is  too  quick, 
and  a  year  from  next  November  is  too  far  off,,  I  should  think 
that  a  year  from  next  March  much  better  than  either,  and 
especially  than  to  put  it  over  until  a  year  from  next  Novem- 
ber. I  would  like  to  hear  the  opinions  of  other  members  as  to 
selecting  the  second  Tuesday  of  March,  1904,  rather  than  the 
second  Tuesday  of  March,  1903,  or  the  first  Tuesday  of  No- 
vember, 1904. 

Mr.  Fairbanks  of  Cornish — It  seems  to  me  that  the  people 
of  this  state,  will  not  forget  this  Convention,.  I  think  it  would 
be  better  to  submit  the  amendments  to  the  people  a  year  from 
next  March.  They  will  at  that  time  have  become  more  fully 
acquainted  with  the  amendments  and  will  understand  the  sub- 
jects better  than  they  do)  now  with  a  year's  time  to  discuss 
them  in,  or  than  they  would  as  early  as  next  March.  I  would 
be  glad  to  see  the  time  set  for  a  year  from  next  March. 

Mr.  Hubbard  of  Amherst — I  think  the  second  Tuesday  of 
next  March  would  be  plenty  late  enough.  I  presume  in  re- 
gard to  most  of  the  amendments  that  we  have  to-  submit  the 
people  would  not  want  more  than  ten  minutes  to  express  their 
opinions  in,  and  to  decide  the  matters  most  effectually. 

I  presume  that  the  people  will  remember  this  Convention 
as  long  as  they  want  to,  but  I  think  they  will  be  as  well  pre- 
pared to  vote  upon  the  amendments  next  March  as  they  will 
be  a  year,  two  years,  or  three  years  from  that  time. 

Mr.  Bartlett  of  Sunapee — There  is  certainly  one  advantage 
in  voting  upon  the  amendments  next  March.  As  I  under- 
stand it,  the  basis  of  the  next  legislature  would  have  to  be 
acted  upon  by  the  legislature  immediately  following  the  adop- 
tion of  the  amendments  by  the  people.  The  legislature  sit- 
ting in  January  would  probably  be  in  session  after  the  second 
Tuesday  in  March,  and  they  can  establish  the  basis  of  repre- 
sentation for  the  next  legislature,  and  thus  save  the  state 
some  $18,000. 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  769 

Mr.  Ashley  of  Dorchester — I  think  with  Mr.  Fairbanks  that 
the  people  of  this  state  will  have  occasion  to  remember  this 
Convention,  at  least  the  111  pro-rated  towns  will. 

In  regard  to;  the  time  of  submitting  these  amendments  to 
the  people,  it  seems  to  me  that  the  better  time  is  the  second 
Tuesday  of  next  March.  Within  a  year  from  that  time  they 
will  have  forgotten  to  a  great  extent  the  substance  of  these 
amendments,  and  the  reasons  and  arguments  for  and  against 
them.  Then  it  will  be  better  to  have  it  in  March  at  the  March 
meeting,  for  at  that  time  yotu  will  get  a  fuller  attendance  and 
you  will  get  a  better  vote  than  at  any  other  time.  The  people 
of  this  state  are  not  in  ignorance  of  what  is  or  has  been  going 
on  in  this  Convention.  They  are  keeping  posted,  and  I  think 
they  will  be  prepared  to  vote  by  the  second  Tuesday  of  March 
next.  , 

Mr.  Stockwell  of  Claremont — I  represent  in  part  one  of 
the  largest  towns  in  the  state,  and  as  far  as  we  are  concerned 
I  do  not  believe  it  would  make  much  difference  whether  next 
March  or  a  year  from  next  March,  or  a  year  from  next  Novem- 
ber, is  set  for  the  time  for  submitting  these  amendments. 
Personally,  I  have  been  in  favor  of  the  back  towns — the  small 
dogs,  as  you  might  call  them — but  my  constituents  have  sent 
me  here  to  vote  as  they  wish  to  have  me  vote,  and  I  voted  for 
the  majority  report  to-day,  which  I  think  perhaps  may  be 
ratified  or  may  not  be.  I  will  say  this,  I  was  born  and  brought 
up  in  a  very  small  town  back  in  the  country,  and  my  expe- 
rience is  that  coming  to  town-meeting  on  the  second  Tuesday 
of  March  is  sometimes  about  impossible.  Now  if  these  gen- 
tlemen from  the  small  towns  that  are  back  in  the  country 
want  to  carry  their  point,  and  they  are  prepared,  as  I  have 
heard  represented  this  afternoon,  to  vote  down  this  amend- 
ment with  respect  to  representation  which  we  passed  here, 
they  had  better  put  off  till  a  year  from  next  November  when 
the  going  will  be  good  and  you  will  get  out  a  fuller  vote  than 
at  any  other  time. 

I  think  myself,  as  a  rule,  that  next  March  will  be  too  soon, 
49 


770     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

And  if  you  are  going  to  put  it  off  until  a  year  from  next 
March,  you  had  better  put  it  off  till  a  year  from  next  No- 
vember. 

Mr.  Buckminster  of  Kosbury — I,  too,  bow  to  my  constit- 
uents, as  the  gentleman  has  said  who  last  spoke.  I  think  it 
will  be  satisfactory  to  the  small  towns  or  the  small  fry,  so- 
called,  to  vote  at  any  time  the  questions  may  be  submitted. 
It  occurs  to  me,  however,  that  it  would  be  better  to  have  next 
March.  Many  of  the  small  towns  have  sent  but  one  delegate 
to  this  Convention,  but  I  think  they  would  be  able  to  circulate 
among  the  people  and  give  them  some  information  if  re- 
quested and  necessary  for  them  to  do  so,  and  I  think  they  may 
be  able  to  remove  some  of  the  doubts  with  reference  to  these 
amendments  that  the  people  might  have.  I  think  that  next 
March,  or  a  year  from  next  March,  is  the  better  time,  and  I 
think  it  would  be  better  to  have  it  next  March. 

Mr.  Hamblett  of  Nashua — It  seems  to  me  if  the  work  of 
this  Convention  "were  well  done,  it  were  well  if  it  were  done 
quickly."  If  the  amendments  are  for  the  benefit  of  the  state, 
we  cannot  adopt  them  too  quickly,  and  if  they  are  wrong  the 
sooner  we  are  set  right  the  better  for  all  concerned.  I  believe 
next  March  gives  ample  time  to  consider  them,  and  at  that 
time  we  shall  have  it  nearer  to  our  hearts  and  firmer  fixed  in 
our  memory,  and  shall  be  more  earnest  in  giving  what  instruc- 
tion we  can  to  our  fellow-citizens.  I  think  the  second  Tues- 
day of  next  March  is  the  proper  and  fitting  time. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth — As  a  member  of  the  Com- 
mittee on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the 
Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention,  I  desire  to  call 
attention  to  some  suggestions  that  have  been  made  in  regard 
to  the  proper  time  of  submitting  our  amendments  to  the 
people. 

It  has  been  stated  that  in  many  of  the  larger  towns  it  re- 
quires all  day  to  transact  the  ordinary  business  of  the  town, 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  771 

and  that  such  towns  would  not  have  time  to  consider  these 
amendments  at  their  annual  town-meeting. 

It  has  also  been  said  that  in  a  great  many  towns  only  a 
small  proportion  of  the  voters  are  in  the  habit  of  attending 
the  town-meetings  in  March. 

There  are  but  few  of  our  cities  that  hold  their  annual 
meetings  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March.  These  are  some  of 
the  reasons  advanced  why  the  amendments  should -not  be 
voted  upon  at  our  next  annual  town-meetings. 

It  is  entirely  immaterial  to  me  or  to*  the  city  from  which  I 
come  when  these  amendments  are  submitted  because  we  hold 
our  city  election  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March,  and  the  area 
of  our  city  is  quite  small,  and  it  is  not  very  difficult  for  our 
voters  to  come  out  and  vote  at  any  time;  but  I  can  readily  see 
that  it  may  make  some  difference  to  many  other  cities  and 
towns  in  regard  to  the  time  of  taking  the  sense  of  the  voters. 

Some  think  March  would  be  too  early  because  it  would  not 
give  sufficient  time  to  canvass  the  state  and  conduct  an  edu- 
cational campaign  to  enable  the  people  to  vote  understand- 
ingly  upon  all  these  amendments. 

If  in  the  opinion  of  the  larger  part  of  the  members  present 
there  is  sufficient  time  between  now  and  the  second  Tuesday 
of  March  to  properly  consider  these  amendments  so  as  to  ob- 
tain a  fair  and  intelligent  expression  upon  them  I  should  cer- 
tainly be  in  favor  of  submitting  them  to  the  people  at  that 
time. 

The  members  of  the  committee  are  anxious  to  obtain  an 
expression  of  the  members  present  so  as  to  enable  them  to  fix 
upon  the  time  that  will  be  the  fairest  and  most  satisfactory 
to  all  sections  of  the  state. 

Mr.  Wilkins  of  Henndker — It  seems  to  me  that  the  best 
time  for  the  submission  of  these  questions  is  when  these 
amendments  are  in  the  minds  of  the  people.  We  have  our 
daily  papers,  which  under  the  system  of  free  rural  delivery 
are  delivered  to  every  farmer  of  the  state,  and  these  farmers 
are  reading  the  papers,  and  these  matters  are  fresh  in  their 
minds  and  will  be  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March  next. 


772     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  only  objection  to  that  date,  as  I  see,  is  that  in  the  cities 
there  will  necessarily  be  special  elections.  But  if  the  election 
is  held  one  year  from  next  March  the  same  thing  will  be  neces- 
sary,, and  the  objection  to  a  year  from  next  November  is  that 
a  long  time  must  elapse,  and  the  people  will  be  thinking  of 
other  things,  while  now  they  are  thinking  of  the  doings  of 
this  Convention. 

It  seems  to  me  if  we  have  to  subject  the  cities  to  the  ex- 
pense and  inconvenience  of  a  special  election,  it  is  best  it  be 
done  at  the  coming  March  election. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough — I  think  that  the  suggestion  of 
the  committee  is  the  fairest  to  the  voters,  to  have  this  submis- 
sion at  the  coming  March  meetings,  and  is  the  best  suggestion 
that  can  be  made.  I  don't  know  how  it  is  in  all  the  towns  of 
this  state,  but  I  am  confident  a  full  vote  throughout  the  state 
in  regard  to  the  questions  submitted  to  them  by  this  Conven- 
tion can  be  had  at  the  March  meetings,  and  fuller  than  at  the 
presidential  election,  or  at  a  fall  meeting  in  November. 

I  do  not  know  just  what  the  custom  is  in  all  the  different 
towns  in  regard  to  taking  the  vote  at  the  fall  elections,  but  I 
presume  about  the  same  system  prevails  everywhere,  that 
there  is  but  a  small  portion  of  the  time  during  the  day  of  elec- 
tion when  but  a  small  part  of  the  people  congregate  in  the 
place  where  the  vote  is  being  taken.  In  the  March  meeting 
there  comes  up  the  question  of  the  selection  of  a  road  agent, 
and  it  is  the  time  when  you  raise  your  money;  it  is  the  time 
when  all  the  questions  relating  to  municipalities  come  before 
the  people,  and  the  people  are  there,  and  they  are  staying  to 
hear  discussions  in  regard  to  all  the  questions  which  come  be- 
fore them.  It  seems  to  me  this  is  the  time  when  this  vote 
should  be  taken  and  that  a  fuller  vote  can  be  had  at  that  time 
than  at  any  other. 

Whether  it  is  too  soon  or  not  I  do  not  know,  but  I  am  not 
of  the  opinion  that  it  is.  Perhaps  all  the  gentlemen  present 
do  not  feel  as  I  do  about  this  matter.  I  have  this  matter  upon 
my  mind,  and  want  to  get  it  off.  We  have  had  a  free,  frank, 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  773 

open,  and  good  fight,  but  the  question  is  not  settled  until  it  is 
fairly  before  the  people  and  they  have  thrown  their  votes 
upon  whether  the  proposition  passed  by  the  majority  report 
here  will  receive  the  two-thirds  majority  which  it  requires. 

One  reason  why  I  want  this  off  my  mind  is  simply  in  conse- 
quence of  remarks  that  gentlemen  like  to  make,  as  they  al- 
ways do  when  a  person  is  defeated.  One  gentleman  said, 
"How  do  you  feel  since  you  rode  in  from  the  valley  of  the 
shadow?"  My  reply  was,  "I  don't  feel  that  I  have  ridden  in 
from  the  valley  of  the  shadow."  I  could  hardly  think  what  he 
meant,  but  I  suppose  it  was  that  number  600  that  was  in  his 
mind — the  600  for  the  first  representative.  Of  course  it  car- 
ried my  mind  back  to>  the  600  of  Balaklava,  although  I  could 
not  see  any  analogy  between  the  two,  unless  it  was  that  there 
was  a  large  army  of  ex-senators  in  front  of  us;  ex-judges  and 
lawyers  at  the  right  of  us,  and  naval  officers  and  lawyers  at 
the  left,  and  gentlemen  who  had  not  the  courage  of  their  con- 
victions at  the  rear  of  us;  but  they  did  n't  alarm  me,  neither 
-do'  I  feel  alarmed  or  chagrined  about  this  matter.  We  have 
fought  a  good  fight,  and  although  we  have  not  won  we  have 
frightened  you  and  are  in  as  good  a  trim  as  you  are,  and  want 
it  off  our  minds,  and  no  better  time  can  be  suggested,  to  my 
mind,  than  the  next  March  meeting,  and,  gentlemen,  we  will 
meet  you  there. 

Mr.  Cole  of  Salem — The  gentleman  from  Peterborough, 
Mr.  Scott,  has  very  nearly  expressed  my  position.  We  came 
here  with  the  expectation  of  cutting  down  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives, and  I  think  it  was  the  desire  of  my  town,  and  I 
think  it  is  the  duty  of  us  all  to  go  home — I  think  it  is  my 
duty,  and  I  shall  goi  home  and  talk  with  the  people  and  try  to 
get  them  to  ratify  what  we  have  done  to-day,  and  I  think 
three  months  is  amply  long  enough  for  that  purpose. 

I  was  one  of  those  that  started  out  with  the  idea  of  800  for 
the  first  representative,  and  although  with  most  of  the  small 
towns  we  lose  half  of  our  representation  by  this  measure,  we 
are  willing  to  do  so  for  the  sake  of  reducing  the  house.  I 


774    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

have  been  with  the  majority  ever  since  the  vote,  and  I  think  I 
shall  he  with  the  majority  when  this  vote  comes,  whether  it 
comes  next  March,  or  a  year  from  next  March,  or  a  year  from 
next  November. 

Mr.  Johnson  of  Colebrook — I  do  not  agree  with  several  .of 
the  gentlemen  who  have  said  that  from  now  till  the  second 
Tuesday  of  next  March  is  too  short  a  time.  I  do  not  believe  it 
is  necessary,  after  the  discussions  we  have  had  in  this  Con- 
vention, that  there  should  be  any  campaign  of  education,  or 
any  special  process  of  carrying  the  merits  of  these  amend- 
ments to  the  people.  I  believe  the  people  of  this  state  have 
kept  pace  with  this  Convention,  and  have  understood  what  we 
have  done  here,  and  have  carefully  weighed  the  amendments 
that  have  been  proposed,  and  the  arguments  against  them; 
and  that  they  will  be  better  prepared,  next  March,  to  act  upon 
them  than  at  any  other  time.  The  discussions  will  probably 
be  kept  up,  and  the  people  will  be  continually  considering 
these  matters  and  keeping  them  in  mind,  knowing  that  they 
are  to  act  upon  them,  and  pass  final  judgment  at  that  time. 
Whereas,  upon  the  other  hand,  if  they  understand  that  action 
is  postponed  until  a  year  from  next  March,  or  a  year  from 
next  November,  this  Convention  will  be  forgotten,  and  its 
work  will  be  substantially  forgotten  by  many,  and  then, 
I  admit,  a  campaign  of  education  may  be  necessary  to  bring 
these  ideas  back  into  the  minds  of  the  people.  Now  if  we  sub- 
mit them  at  the  election  in  March  next,  I  do  not  believe  it 
would  be  necessary.  Consequently,  I  believe  that  this  Con- 
vention should  adopt  as  the  time  for  the  people  to  act  upon 
these  amendments  the  second  Tuesday  of  next  March. 

Mr.  Clark  of  Windham — This  appears  to  be  a  sort  of  ex- 
perience meeting,  and  perhaps  it  would  be  well  that  I  should 
state  my  experience.  After  going  home  last  Friday  night, 
and  being  among  my  constituents  during  the  intermission  of 
the  Convention,  I  am  convinced  that  they  will  be  as  well  pre- 
pared the  second  Tuesday  of  March  next  as  they  could  be  at 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  775 

any  time  in  the  future.  I  found  that  they  were  well  posted, 
and  I  think  I  am  safe  in  saying  that  they  were  better  posted 
than  some  of  the  delegates  of  this  Convention,  judging  from 
the  empty  seats  that  have  continued  empty  throughout  the 
session. 

Eeference  has  been  made  in  regard  to  the  600.  My  town  is 
one  of  the  towns  between  six  and  eight  hundred — one  of  the 
forty-two  towns  that  will  be  pro-rated  under  the  amendment 
proposed.  Now  I  will  speak  for  them  in  this  way.  I  think 
they  were  unanimous  in  their  idea  of  cutting  down  the  mem- 
bership of  the  house,  and  they  were  willing  to  turn  in  their 
mite  toward  cutting  it  down,.  I  voted  to-day  with  the  minor- 
ity, but  now  that,  we  have,  a,s  a  Convention,  accepted  the  800 
and  the  1,600  to  recommend  to  the  people,  I  >will  venture  to 
state  that  I  believe  that  my  town  will  not  go  back  on  the 
doings  of  the  Convention. 

Mr.  Pollard  of  Newfields — I  am  a  delegate  from  one  of  the 
small  towns,  between  600  and  800,  and  I  voted  this  morning 
on  the  basis  of  600  and  1,800.  But  I  accept  for  one  the  action 
of  the  Convention.  If  that  act  had  been  different,  I  should 
have  expected  that  the  delegates  of  the  cities  would  have  gone 
home  to  their  constituents  and  would  have  asked  them  to 
ratify  the  amendments  which  had  been  offered  to  them  by  this 
Convention.  As  it  is,  I  shall  feel  it  my  duty  to  go  home  and 
advise  the  voters  of  my  town  to  ratify  what  has  been  done  by 
this  Convention.  It  looks  to  me,  as  has  been  stated  here,  that 
the  matter  is  fresh  in  the  minds  of  the  people  of  the  state,  and 
that  they  will  be  ready  to  vote  upon  it  on  the  second  Tuesday/ 
of  next  March. 

Mr.  Bucklin  of  Alexandria — I  am  another  delegate  from 
one  of  the  back  towns,  and  I  presume  the  back  towns  have 
the  floor  this  evening.  I  think  when  I  go  home  to  my  con- 
stituents they  will  ask  me  why  we  put  off  this  vote  until  a 
year  from  next  November,  or  even  a  year  from  next  March. 

I  may  be  dull,  but  unless  I  hear  some  other  reason  than  has- 


776    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

been  given  I  want  to  know  what  to  say  to  them.  I  think  the 
best  business-like  proposition  that  this  Convention  can  adopt 
— and  the  members  of  this  Convention  are  all  bright  men,  as 
I  have  been  informed  and  as  I  have  also  seen — is  to  have  the 
vote  taken  at  the  next  March  meeting. 

Mr.  Demeritt  of  Alton — I  also  represent  a  small  town,  but 
the  vote  we  have  passed  to-day  will  have  no  effect  on  us.  I, 
for  one,  would  be  in  favor  of  having  these  amendments  sub- 
mitted to  the  voters  next  March. 

As  I  have  sat  here  and  heard  so  much  from  the  city  people 
about  our  men  coming  down  here  and  begging  and  begging 
that  you  should  let  us  keep  our  rights,  I  say  that  we  fellows 
from  the  back  towns  do  not  want,  and  should  not  want,  to 
beg  to  ask  you  to  have  this  vote  at  the  next  March  meeting. 
Set  your  own  time,  and  we  of  the  minority,  the  people  from 
my  town,  and  the  people  from  the  110  pro-rated  towns,  will 
know  what  date  it  is  that  you  set,  and  if  you  put  it  off  until 
next  March,  a  year  from  next  March,  oir  a  year  from  next  No- 
vember, the  people  of  these  111  towns  will  be  there,  and  you 
will  hear  from  them. 

Mr.  Powers  of  Hollis — As  the  small  towns  seem  to  have 
the  floor  this  evening,  I  will  say  a  word.  I  come  from  a  small 
town,  a  town  having  about  900  inhabitants,  and  I  voted  with 
the  minorit}'r.  I  can  guarantee,  I  think,  that  ooir  town  will 
acquiesce  in  the  doings  of  the  Convention  to-day.  I  believe 
we  should  strike  while  the  iron  is  hot,  as  has  been  said,  and 
while  the  amendments  that  have  been  made  are  fresh  in  our 
minds.  I  think  a  year  from  next  March,  or  a  year  from  next 
November,  are  too  far  distant.  I  can  see  only  one  objection 
to  having  it  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March  next,  and  per- 
haps that  is  no  objection — that  is,  it  might  not  give  time  for 
the  women  to  make  their  campaign  and  present  their  cause  on 
the  woman's  suffrage  question. 

Mr.  Cogswell  of  Gilmanton — I  cannot  say  that  I  represent 
a  little  town.  I  represent  the  mother  of  nearly  half  of  the 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  777 

towns  in  Belknap  county,  the  town  of  Gilmanton.  Gilman- 
ton  was  twenty-five  miles  long  and  fifteen  miles  wide,  and 
from  it  was  taken  Gilford,  Belmont,  and  parts  of  other  towns, 
and  it  is  not  a  small  town  now.  So  I  cannot  sympathize  fully 
with  the  gentlemen  from  the  small  towns  like  the  gentleman 
from  Alton. 

There  has  been  only  three  propositions  presented  by  the 
committee  this  evening,  and  one  of  the  three  propositions,  as 
I  understand  it,  is  that  these  amendments  shall  be  submitted 
to  the  people  at  the  election  in  March,  coming  on  the  second 
Tuesday  of  March.  The  other  proposition  that  has  been 
recommended  by  some  one  is,  that  we  submit  the  amendments 
some  time  along  in  the  fall,  September  or  October,  or  some 
pleasant  Saturday  afternoon,  and  ha.ve  special  elections  all 
over  the  state  to  vote  upon  these  questions,  and  the  last  prop- 
osition was  to  postpone  everything  twenty-three  months  from 
now,  that  is,  until  November,  1904. 

I  don't  know  how  it  is  with  you,  gentlemen,  but  I  forget 
many  things  in  that  length  of  time,  and  I  also  hope  I  learn  a 
good  many  things.  If  you  let  this  matter  remain  so  long,  the 
people  of  New  Hampshire  will  forget,  their  interest  will  die 
out.  As  Colonel  Scott  said,  we  want  to  be  in  this  fight  and 
-out  of  it  as  quickly  as  possible.  If  it  is  necessary  to  have  a 
campaign  of  education  to  teach  the  men  to  vote  on  woman's 
suffrage  we  have  now  four  months  in  which  that  campaign 
can  be  made. 

I  submit  in  all  seriousness  that  the  proper  time  to  submit 
these  amendments  is  the  time  when  the  greater  part  of  the 
people  in  New  Hampshire  will  be  at  the  polls.  There  is  no 
better  tame  than  at  our  town-meetings,  where  we  meet 
together  to  raise  money,  to  elect  road  agents,  to  fight  over 
selectmen,  and  to  get  into  a  general  scramble  all  round. 
There  is  plenty  of  time  to  vote  upon  those  matters  at  those 
meetings,  and  I  hope  it  will  be  the  sober  sense  of  this  Con- 
vention that  when  we  vote  on  the  amendments  it  will  be  on 
the  second  Tuesday  of  next  March. 

Mr.  Cross  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  resolution: 


778    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

"Resolved,  That  the  present  session  of  this  Convention 
ooone  to  a  close  on  Friday,,  December  19,  not  later  than  & 
o'clock  in  the  afternoon.,  the  exact  hour  to  be  fixed  by  the 
Convention  at  the  morning  session  of  the  19th. 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

The  President — The  chair  will  state  to  the  Convention 
that  there  are  very  few  matters  remaining  undisposed  of  upon 
the  secretary's  desk.  There  will  be  two  reports  of  committees 
to-morrow  morning.  Both  of  them  are  already  made,  and  the 
reports  will  be  "inexpedient."  In  addition  to  that,  there  is 
an  amendment  which  was  passed,  relating  to  pensions,  the 
vote  on  which  was  rescinded.  That  amendment  is  now  on  the 
table.  There  is  a  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from  Exeter, 
Mr.  Fuller,  with  reference  to  the  appointment  of  solicitors, 
and  there  is  a  vote  on  the  Leach  substitute  to  the  resolution 
of  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  on  the  free 
pass  question,  which  vote  will  be  taken  at  12  o'clock  to- 
morrow. So  far  as  legislative  business  is  concerned,  the  chair 
is  not  aware  there  are  any  other  matters  undisposed  of. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Is  it  expected  that  the  resolu- 
tion about  pensions  is  to  be  taken  up  and  acted  upon?  The 
Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People 
the  Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention  hope  to  be 
ready  with  their  report  early  tomorrow,  and  we  desire  to  have 
all  matters  before  us  as  early  as  possible,  and  if  they  are 
submitted  promptly  we  shall  have  no  difficulty  in  getting  our 
report  ready.  It  is  very  important  that  the  text  of  the- 
amendments  should  be  read  with  care,  and  that  any  error- 
that  have  been  overlooked  should  be  corrected.  I  think  it  is 
the  purpose  of  the  committee  toi  hand  to  the  secretary  with 
their  report  the  exact  text  of  all  the  amendments  which  have- 
been  adopted. 

I  feel,  Mr.  President,  that  the  Committee  on  Time  and 
Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed 
to  by  the  Convention  have  done  wisely  in  bringing  in  the 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  779 

question  that  we  have  been  discussing — th;e  question  as  to 
the  time  of  submitting  the  amendments.  It  is  very  evi- 
dent that  the  time  will  be  the  second  Tuesday  of  next  March. 
I  am  very  glad  because  it  is  disclosed  that  there  is  an  excellent 
sentiment  in  the  Convention.  There  is  friendship  and  love 
of  our  state  manifest  here  to-night,  for  rousing  which  I  be- 
lieve the  committee  ought  to  receive  the  thanks  of  the  Con- 
vention. 

The  President — The  chair  will  inquire  if  the  chairman  of 
the  Committee  on  Finance  will  be  able  to  make  a  report? 

Mr.  Clement  of  Manchester — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Convention:  The  Committee  on  Finance  has  had  sev- 
eral meetings,  and  we  know  approximately  at  the  present  time 
about  what  the  amount  of  the  bills  are.  By  to-morrow  morn- 
ing at  9  o'clock  we  will  know  exactly,  and  then  we  will  be 
able  to  submit  to  you  a  definite  report. 

At  the  present  time  we  can  submit  the  following:  We  have 
determined  to  recommend  to  the  Convention  that  the  secre- 
tary be  instructed  to  make  up  a  pay-roll  for  the  members  for 
the  full  eighteen  days  since  the  session  was  called.  The  actual 
number  of  days  that  the  Convention  has  been  in  session  is 
fourteen,  but  the  whole  number  of  days  since  we  convened  is 
eighteen.  We  have  413  members  at  a  salary  of  $3  per  day, 
and  that,  including  the  salary  of  the  officers  of  the  Conven- 
tion, would  make  an  expense,  so  far  as  salary  is  concerned,  of 
$1,300  each  day,  a  total  of  $22,000.  In  addition  to  that,  we 
have  some  other  running  expenses,  the  amount  of  which  is 
some  $2,500  to  $2,700,  making  the  expense  thus  far  about 
$24,700,  or  $24,800.  That  leaves  unprovided  for,  the  mileage 
of  the  officers  and  members,  which  is  estimated  at  $4,900  or 
$5,000,  and  the  printing  and  compiling  of  the  journal,  which 
has  been  estimated  somewhere  between  $2,000  and  $3,000. 

We  shall  recommend  to-morrow  that  the  salaries  of  the  offi- 
cers and  members  be  paid  in  full,  with  the  running  expenses 
incurred  since  we  met  here,  and  leave  to  some  future  legis- 


780    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

lature  the  duty  of  appropriating  the  necessary  money  to  pay 
the  mileages,  and  for  compiling  and  indexing  and  printing 
the  journal,  and  for  the  distribution  of  pamphlets  containing 
the  amendments  to  the  Constitution  which  we  have  adopted, 
which  I  understand  the  Convention  will  order  distributed  and 
placed  in  the  hands  of  every  voter  in  the  state. 

Toi-morrow  morning,  as  soon  as  some  further  reports  are  in, 
we  will  render  a  full  report. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  don't  quite  understand  how 
much  of  a  deficiency  there  will  be. 

Mr.  Clement  of  Manchester — There  will  be  a  deficiency  of 
somewhere  between  four  and  five  thousand  dollars,  as  I  un- 
derstand, for  the  mileage  of  members,  and  besides  that  there 
will  be  the  expense  of  printing  and  indexing  the  journal,  and 
the  expense  of  getting  out  the  copies  of  the  amended  Consti- 
tution to  place  in  the  hands  of  the  voters  of  the  state,  which 
Avould  be  from  three  thousand  to  four  thousand  dollars  more. 

Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia,  from  the  Committee  on  the  Legis- 
lative Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  amendment  of 
Mr.  Colby  of  Hanover  relative  to  the  privileges  of  electors,  re- 
ported the  same  with  the  following  resolution: 

"Eesolved,  That  owing  to  the  lateness  of  the  session  of  the 
Convention  it  is  inexpedient  to  attempt  to1  amend  the  Consti- 
tution in  this  respect." 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Mr.  Colby  of  Hanover — If  the  Convention  had  not  resolved 
to  adjourn  sine  die  to-morrow  I  now  should  deem  it  my  duty 
to  urge  the  adoption  of  a  moral  test  for  the  suffrage,  evi- 
denced by  habitual  obedience  to  the  positive  law  of  the  state. 
We  already  have  agreed  to  recommend  to  the  people  the  adop- 
tion of  an  educational  test  for  the  suffrage  and  in  my  judg- 
ment the  welfare  of  the  commonwealth  also  demands  the 


THURSDAY,  DECEMBER  18,  1902.  781 

establishment  of  a  moral  test  which,  shall  exclude  criminals 
from  the  privilege  of  voting.  Every  state  in  the  Union,  if  I 
mistake  not,  except  three,  now  disfranchises  for  certain  speci- 
fied crimes,  and  one  of  these  three  is  Xew  Hampshire. 

Unfortunately  my  resolution  on  this  subject  was  not  orig- 
inally referred  to  the  same  committee  to  which  was  referred 
that  relating  to  the  educational  test,  and  thus  its  considera- 
tion by  the  Committee  on  Legislative  Department  was  so  de- 
layed that  no  report  upon  it  was  possible  until  this  late  hour. 
It  is  clear  that  any  proposal  affecting  so*  vital  a  matter  as  the 
suffrage  if  now  taken  up  might  lead  to  prolonged  discussion. 
Under  these  circumstances,  despite  my  judgment  regarding 
the  importance  of  such  a  moral  test  for  the  suffrage,  I 
acquiesce  in  the  practical  wisdom  of  the  report  of  your  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Lyford  of  Concord — I  should  say,  in  behalf  of  the  com- 
mittee, that  the  committee  as  a  whole  was  very  much  im- 
pressed with  the  idea  presented  by  the  gentleman  from  Hano- 
ver in  his  resolution.  It  was  unfortunate  that  that  measure 
did  not  reach  us  until  a  very  late  day.  We  considered  it  very 
fully,  and  we  had  frequent  conferences  with  the  gentleman 
from  Hanover,  and  thought  at  one  time  to-day  we  had  reached 
an  agreement  in  regard  to  it  so  as  to  present  it  here  and  b& 
able  to  justify  our  action  in  reporting  it  favorably.  A  little 
later  it  appeared  tliere  was  some  difference  of  sentiment  in 
the  committee.  We  again  considered  it  this  afternoon,  and 
found  we  could  not  present  a  unanimous  report,  and  owing  to 
the  lateness  of  the  time  we  considered  the  best  we  could  do 
without  precipitating  a  discussion  upon  this  Convention 
which  would  be  fruitless  and  probably  result  in  nothing,  to 
present  it  without  prejudice  to  the  Convention,  giving  as  the 
only  reason  why  the  majority  of  us  did  not  recommend  its 
adoption,  the  lateness  of  the  hour. 

Upon  a  viva  voce  vote  the  resolution  of  the  committee  wa& 
adopted. 


782    JOUBNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Penniman  of  Plainfield,  the  Convention 
adjourned. 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902. 
The  Convention  met  according  to  adjournment. 

(The  President  in  the  chair.) 

Prayer  was  offered  by  the  Rev.  Mr.  Dearborn  of  Eaton. 
The  reading  of  the  journal  was  dispensed  with. 

Mr.  Sanborn  of  Wakefield,  from  the  Committee  on  the 
Legislative  Department,  to  whom  was  referred  the  resolution 
offered  by  Mr.  Clyde  of  Hudson  in  relation  to  the  initiative 
and  referendum,  reported  the  same  with  the  following  reso- 
lution: 

"Resolved,  That  it  is  inexpedient  to  amend  the  Constitution, 
as  proposed  in  the  resolution." 

The  report  was  accepted. 

Question,  upon  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  of  the  com- 
mittee. 

Mr.  Dudley  of  Concord  moved  that  the  proposed  amend- 
ment be  indefinitely  postponed. 

Mr.  Clyde  of  Hudson — One  hundred  and  twenty-six  years 
ago  our  fathers  brought  forth  upon  this  continent  a  new 
nation,  conceived  in  liberty  and  dedicated  to  the  proposition 
that  all  men  are  created  equal  and  that  all  just  power  of  gov- 
ernment is  derived  from  the  consent  of  the  governed.  Their 
ideal  conception  of  liberty  was  almost  miraculous. 

After  they  had  secured  their  freedom  they  set  themselves 
to  work  out  those  great  principles  into  the  details  of  govern- 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  783 

merit.  The  primary  factors  that  were  to  make  up  the  great 
whole  of  their  fabric  of  government  were  the  little  "town  re- 
publics/' we  have  been  talking  about  before  this  Convention, 
which  in  themselves,  God  bless  them,  were  pure  democracies. 

In  these  little  republics  all  matters  were  decided  by  direct 
legislation.  In  these  little  republics  was  the  fullest  carrying 
out  of  the  principle  that  all  just  power  is  derived  from  the 
consent  of  the  governed. 

In  those  days  the  means  of  communication  between  com- 
munities were  difficult  and  when  the  states  were  founded  of 
these  little  republics  it  became  necessary  for  each  to  clothe 
with  power  an  agent  to  represent  it  and  act  for  it  in  the  con- 
ference of  the  whole. 

I  said  the  other  day  that  the  fathers  made  a  mistake  in  thus 
clothing  their  representatives  with  too  great  power.  As  the 
honorable  member  from  Kensington  said,  "I  withdraw  my  re- 
marks," and  will  say  that  for  their  time,  perhaps,  they  did 
not;  in  the  times  of  the  fathers  there  was  a  high  standard  of 
individual  integrity,  political  intrigue  had  not  then  become  a 
science,  the  monsters,  the  trusts,  were  not  seeking  to  crush 
out  all  individual  effort,  and  corporate  power,  with  its  vast 
wealth,  was  unknown.  That  these  evils  are  in  the  land  to-day 
is  admitted  by  all  parties. 

Even  the  fathers  put  checks  into  their  state  and  national 
•constitution.  The  senate  was  to  be  a  check  on  the  house,  and 
the  veto  power  of  the  executive  was  to  be  a  check  over  both. 
Experience  has  taught  us  that  it  is  necessary  to  reserve  in  our 
.organic  law  another  veto  power — the  direct  veto  power  of  the 
people  themselves — over  careless  and  corrupt  legislation  that 
may  be  enacted  by  their  agents. 

This  has  been  commonly  termed  the  referendum,  and  this 
combination  with  the  initiative,  of  which  I  shall  presently 
speak,  together  with  the  power  to  dismiss  unfaithful  officers 
by  ballot  will  do  for  our  people  of  the  present  time  more  than 
the  Magna  Charta  did  for  the  people  of  England.  It  will  give 
us  real  self-government  in  state  matters  and  a  reasonable  con- 
trol of  our  agents  in  office. 


784    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  initiative  of  which  I  spoke  is  but  carrying  out  into  a 
larger  fulness  and  into  state  matters,  so  far  as  practicable,, 
the  old  New  England  town-meeting  system,  which,  as  stated 
by  the  Professor  of  Constitutional  Economy,  in  Iowa  college, 
Jesse  Macy,  in  his  excellent  work  entitled,  "Our  Country," 
isi  pure  democracy. 

Not  a  breaking  away  from  the  old,  but  the  bringing  of  our 
whole  fabric  of  government  into  larger  fulness  in  accord 
with  that  great  foundation  principle  that  all  just  governments 
among  men  derive  their  power  from  the  consent  of  the  gov- 
erned. A  carrying  out  of  that  principle  to  meet  the  changed 
conditions. 

With  these  ideas  in  view  the  descendants  of  the  old  New 
England  stock,  who*  have  gone  out  and  made  new  homes  for 
themselves  in  the  West,  have  made  these  things  a  part  of  the 
organic  law  in  a  number  of  their  states.  They  have  already 
become  a  part  of  the  organic  law  of  South  Dakota,  of  Oregon, 
and  of  Utah,  are  already  pending  before  the  people  of  Ne- 
vada. In  the  state  of  Oregon  this  very  amendment  I  have 
presented  to  this  honorable  body  was  made  a  part  of  the 
organic  law  of  Oregon  last  June  by  a  vote  of  62,024  toi  5,677, 
or  about  11  to  1. 

In  Iowa,,  Illinois,  Missouri,  California.,  and  Massachusetts 
the  legislatures,  empowered  by  their  Constitutions,  have  en- 
acted laws  granting  to  municipalities  a  large  use  of  the 
optional  referendum  and  initiative  in  the  management  of 
their  local  affairs.  It  is  the  simplest  and  most  direct  and  cer- 
tain method  of  controlling  corrupting  influence  in  our  body 
politic  that  can  be  devised. 

The  measure  speaks  for  itself.  If  a  bad  law  is  passed  five 
per  cent,  of  the  voters  can,  upon  petition,  demand  the  refer- 
ence of  the  same  to  the  people.  So  for  any  measure  that  is  in 
the  interest  of  the  people,  that  has,  through  the  influence  of 
the  corrupt  lobby,  been  defeated  in  either  branch  of  their 
legislative  government,  upon  petition,  five  per  cent,  of  the 
legal  voters  of  the  state  may  bring  the  same  directly  to  the 
court  of  last  resort  for  its  decision. 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  785 

Some  have  commonly  supposed  that  the  direct  legislation 
meant  the  enacting  of  all  laws  in  that  way,  but  you  will  notice 
"by  the  reading  of  my  resolution  that  it  does  not  relate  to  mat- 
ters of  immediate  exigency  and  that  the  duty  of  proposing 
and  enacting  laws  is  still  with  the  legislative  branch  of  the 
government.  It  is  merely  the  reserving  to  the  people  the 
power  to  directly  remedy  sins  of  omission  as  well  as  veto  sins 
of  commission. 

In  the  little  republic  of  Switzerland,  where  these  laws  have 
been  with  the  people,  they  have  only  been  invoked  twenty-six 
times  in  twenty-four  years.  The  system  has  been  in  operation 
in  South  Dakota  since  1899,  and  the  Eepublican  governor  of 
that  state,  Governor  Heriod,  says: 

"Since  the  referendum  has  been  a  part  of  our  Constitution 
we  have  had  no  charter-mongers  or  railway  speculators,  no 
wild-cat  schemes  submitted  to  our  legislature.  Formerly  our 
time  was  occupied  by  speculative  schemes  of  one  kind  or  an- 
other, but  since  the  referendum  has  been  a  part  of  the  Con- 
stitution these  people  do  not  press  their  schemes  on  the  legis- 
lature, and  hence  there  is  no  neecssity  for  having  recourse  to 
the  referendum." 

In  Oregon,  the  Eepublican  governor,  Governor  Geer,  ad- 
vised the  people  of  the  state  toi  adopt  the  system.  He  said: 

"If  the  referendum  amendment  is  adopted  by  the  people, 
and  made  use  of  after  adoption,  it  will  be  helpful  all  around 
as  a  restraining  influence  over  careless  legislatures.  Even  if 
not  often  brought  into  requisition,  the  fact  that  it  is  a  part  of 
tjhe  state  constitution,  ready  to  be  used  as  a  check  against  ill- 
advised  legislation  at  any  time  will  justify  its  adoption.  It 
may  not  be  needed  now  any  more  than  it  was  one  hundred 
years  ago,  but  there  have  often  been  times  in  the  past  when 
even  'our  fathers'  could  have  been-  wisely  checked  by  this 
wholesome  reservation  of  the  rights  of  the  people." 

Now,  gentlemen,  let  me  refer  briefly  to  a  few  points  in 
favor  of  direct  legislation. 

Under  direct  legislation  the  best  men  chosen  would  be  to 
50 


786    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

fill  all  positions  where  fitness  was  needed,  as  no  measure 
would  be  sacrificed  by  the  choice  of  men. 

Under  direct  legislation  each  measure  would  be  considered 
on  its  merits  as  it  would  be  voted  on  independently  of  all 
other  questions. 

Under  direct  legislation  money  would  lose  its  corrupting 
power  in  legislation,  as  all  would  see  that  where  money  was 
used  to  influence  legislation,  the  person  who  furnished  the 
money  would  expect  to  reimburse  himself  many  times  from 
the  coffers  of  the  people. 

Under  direct  legislation  the  "third  house"  in  the  legislature 
would  lose  its  power  for  evil  for  the  lobby  would  know  that 
the  representative  could  not  surely  deliver  that  which  was 
sold. 

Under  direct  legislation  the  assertion  that  "all  men  have 
their  price"  would  be  wiped  out,  as  no  man  would  pay  money 
for  goods  which  the  vendor  could  not  deliver. 

Under  direct  legislation  each  particular  measure  would  be 
considered  independently  from  all  other  measures,  and  would 
thus  become  a  mighty  educational  power,  as  men  would  see 
that  unless  they  understood  what  measures  stand  for  they 
could  not  act  for  their  interest.  Therefore  men  would  study. 

Under  direct  legislation  the  people  would  undoubtedly 
make  mistakes,  but  they  would  hold  in  their  own  hands  the 
power  of  correcting  the  mistakes  as  soon  as  they  found  out 
that  they  had  made  the  mistake. 

Under  direct  legislation  the  question  of  license  or  prohibi- 
tion would  be  decided  by  the  people  themselves,  and  the 
officials  would  be  sure  that  the  public  was  with,  them  when 
they  made  an  honest  attempt  to  enforce  the  law,  whatever  it 
might  be. 

Under  direct  legislation  the  people  would  control  legisla- 
tion, which  is  the  best  and  only  real  public  ownership  of  any- 
thing. 

Under  direct  legislation  the  people  would  change  their 
minds  on  any  question  with,  full  power  to*  change  the  law  so 
as  to  conform  to  their  changed  minds. 


FKIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  787 

Under  direct  legislation  if  the  people  had  been  deceived  as 
to  the  merit  of  any  of  their  acts  they  would  be  in  a  position  to 
•enact  the  correct  measure  as  soon  as  they  became  aware  of 
the  deception. 

Under  direct  legislation  the  representatives  would  be  dili- 
gent to  learn  what  the  will  of  their  constituents  was  so  as  to 
l>e  real  representatives  as  well  as  in  name. 

Under  direct  legislation  officials  could  pray  "lead  us  not 
into  temptation,"  and  their  prayer  would  be  answered,  for 
they  would  be  shorn  of  their  power  for  evil. 

Under  direct  legislation  no  franchise  would  be  given  away 
to  any  corporation  contrary  to  the  wish  of  the  people  to  whom 
the  franchise  belongs. 

As  I  referred  in  my  remarks  last  Friday  I  believe  the  peo- 
ple's veto,  of  which  I  have  been  speaking,  might  be  of  great 
value  in  Xew  Hampshire  in  the  next  few  years  to  correct  any 
•evils  that  might  arise  from  the  inequality  of  representation, 
which  has  been  clearly  demonstrated  here  as  impossible  to 
overcome. 

If  I  understood  the  position  of  our  city  friends  in  this 
great  controversy  we  have  had  here  in  regard  to  the  subject 
of  representation,  it  has  not  been  adequacy  of  representation 
they  have  objected  to  under  any  of  the  resolutions  offered, 
but  for  the  power  of  vote  that  they  might  be  protected  in  all 
their  interests.  While  on  the  other  hand  their  country 
friends  have  been  contending  for  the  adequacy  of  representa- 
tion and  for  the  good  of  the  state  and  the  welfare  of  legisla- 
tion I  believe  it  should  be. 

Xow,  gentlemen  of  the  country  districts,  I  believe  if  you 
are  to  demand  adequacy  of  representation  you  should  give 
to  the  cities  the  possibility  of  escape  and  the  right  of  appeal 
to  the  people  from  any  injustice  that  may  be  wrought  by  any 
careless  legislature  of  the  future  composed  of  a  majority  of 
country  members.  This  I  contend  my  amendment  provides. 
And  it  provides  further  the  means  for  giving  to  cities  the 
largest  possible  self-government. 

I  believe  in  this  state,  as  well  as  in.  many  others,  mistakes 


788     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

have  been  made  in  the  state  legislature  interfering  with  the 
local  self-government  of  cities,  a  practice  undemocratic  in 
principle  and  vicious  in  final  results.  Let  me  read  an  article 
in  the  May  10  North  American  Review  of  1901,  by  John  Ford 
on  "Municipal  Government  in  the  United  States." 

"Hitherto,  the  checks  relied  upon  to  prevent  municipal 
misgovernment  have  been  found,  in  state  constitutions  and 
state  legislatures  instead  of  the  public  sentiment  of  the  gov- 
erned community  itself.  This  policy  is  based  on  the  theory 
that  public  sentiment  of  the  rural  districts  furnishes  a  safer 
guarantee  of  proper  administration  of  municipal  affairs.  For 
the  past  five  years  the  writer,  as  a  member  of  the  upper  house 
of  the  New  York  legislature,  has  had  an  opportunity  to  study 
this  theory  in  practical  operation,  and  he  has  no  hesitation  in 
pronouncing  it  not  merely  unsound,  but  actually  vicious. 

"The  checks  really  needed  are  constitutional  checks  upon 
state  legislatures  to  prevent  them  from  interfering  with  the 
internal  local  affairs  and  finances  of  cities."  This  is  what  we 
should  do  while  at  the  business. 

But  you  may  say  that  you  are  introducing  an  innovation. 

"New  occasions  teach  new  duties, 
Time  makes  ancient  goods  uncouth. 

He  must  upward  still  and  onward 
Who  would  keep  abreast  of  truth." 

I  declare  that  in  principle  this  is  no  innovation,  but  a 
bringing  out  into  a  larger  fulness  to  suit  the  conditions  of 
the  age  the  pure,  democracy  of  the  fathers.  A  rededication  of 
the  old  principles  that  there  may  be  a  new  birth  of  freedom, 
and  that  a  government  of  the  people,  by  the  people,  and  for 
the  people  may  not  perish  from  the  earth  by  reason  of  the 
power  and  corruption  of  wealth. 

You  may  say  the  people  will  not  exercise  these  powers  re- 
served, and  if  they  do  use  them  will  not  do  so  rightfully. 
July  27,  1861,  Andrew  Johnson,  then  a  senator  from  Tennes- 
see, was  speaking  in  the  United  States  senate  to  the  proposi- 
tion, "The  Government  Must  Be  Maintained."  He  said: 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  789 

*'%We  have  confidence  in  the  people,  and  we  have  confidence  in 
the  integrity  and  capacity  of  the  people  to  govern  them- 
selves. We  have  lived  entertaining  these  opinions,  we  intend 
to'  die  entertaining  them." 

I  want  to  ask  you  whether  Mr.  Johnson's  prophecy  came 
true.  Whether  Lincoln  could  put  confidence  in  the  people 
when  Thomas  for  five  terrible  hours  held  the  road  to  Chatta- 
nooga and  served  the  army  of  the  Cumberland.  I  want  to  ask 
you  whether  he  could  put  confidence  in  the  people  when  Lee 
marched  down  the  valley  of  the  Shenandoah,  crossed  the 
Potomac  and  met  the  people  in  blue  at  Gettysburg. 

I  want  to  ask  you  if  it  was  not  a  fulfilment  of  Mr.  John- 
son's prophecy  when  Lee  gave  his  sword  to  Grant  and  the 
people  in  blue  laid  down  their  arms  and  quietly  came  back  to 
their  northern  homes  and  then  stood  by  during  the  trying 
period  of  the  reconstruction  of  the  Union. 

They  have  been  standing  by  everything  good  and  true  for 
the  most  part  ever  since  and  they  will  ever  stand  by  that 
which  is  good  and  true  and  right. 

I  am  not  in  sympathy  with  some  of  the  things  that  have 
been  said  in  this  Convention  in  regard  to  ratification  by  the 
people  should  a  number  of  propositions  be  submitted  by  this 
body.  I  think  -it  an  unjust  reflection  on  the  intelligence  of 
the  Xew  Hampshire  people. 

I  believe  the  people  of  this  state  desire  that  our  Constitu- 
tion be  made  a  living,  working  instrument  for  them  and  their 
children.  I  believe  if  the  fathers  could  speak  out  of  their 
graves  they  would  say,  "Make  it  such,"  they  would  respect 
us  for  the  love  and  reverence  we  hold  for  institutions  of  their 
days.  They  would  say,  "Apply  the  principles  we  used  in 
new  forms  if  necessary  to  meet  your  conditions  that  you  may 
enjoy  and  secure  the  blessing  God  has  given  you  through  the 
inventive  genius  of  men  and  do  not  be  thwarted  in  your  pur- 
poses by  the  power  of  corporate  wealth." 

Gentlemen,  this  movement  for  the  power  of  direct  legisla- 
tion by  the  people  has  been  for  the  most  part  a  non-partisan 
one.  Republicans  have  supported  it  and  carried  it  forward  in 


790     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

western  states,  grangers  have  supported  it,  Democrats  have 
declared  in  its  favor,  and  organized  labor  through  the  country 
is  asking  for  and  demanding  it. 

As  fair-minded  men  that  you  have  shown  yourselves  to  be 
these  last  few  weeks,  I  ask  you,  gentlemen,  that  this  amend- 
ment may  be  submitted  to  the  people  of  New  Hampshire. 

Mr.  Dudley  of  Concord  moved  that  the  amendment,  to- 
gether with  the  resolution  of  the  committee,  tihereon,  be  laid 
upon  the,  table. 
• 

On  this  motion  the  affirmative  prevailed  on  a  viva  voce  vote. 

A  division  was  called  for  which  resulted  in  236  gentleman 
having  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  34  gentlemen  having 
voted  in  the  negative,  and  the  motion  to  lay  upon  the  table 
prevailed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow,  the  resolution  offered  by 
Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter  in  relation  to  county  solicitor,  together 
with  the  report  of  the  committee  on  the  same,  was  recalled 
from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  to  which  the  resolution  and 
report  had  been  referred  for  consideration. 

The  question  being  stated,  "Shall  the  recommendation  of 
the  committee  that  the  resolution  as  reported!  in  a  new  draft, 
be  adopted?'' 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter — I  am  aware  that  this  session  is  about 
at  its  end,  and  by  merely  debating  it  is  possible  to  kill  .any 
measure,  however  meritorious,  unless  it  commended  itself  so 
strongly  to  this  Convention  that  the  effort  to  kill  proves 
abortive.  I  shall  endeavor  not  to  waste  any  time  in  this  mat- 
ter, but  it  seems  to  be  due  the  Convention  that  I  should  state 
the  reasons  for  this  resolution,  which  was  introduced  by  me. 

This  is  a  measure  introduced  by  me,  though  not  in  its 
present  form.  It  was  not  introduced  by  me  on  my  own 
notion,  but  on  request  of  a  large  number  of  the  lawyers  of 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  791 

the  state  and  of  the  members  of  the  New  Hampshire  Bar 
association,,  of  which  I  have  the  honor  to  be  appointed  one  of 
a  committee. 

The  resolution  seeks  to  remedy  an  evil  which  is  felt,  not 
in  one  county  of  the  state,  but  in  several,  under  the  present 
method  of  choosing  solicitors.  Solicitors,  as  you  are  all 
aware,  since  1877  have  been  chosen  by  the  people — elected, 
that  is,  in  the  several  counties,  and  it  is  the  evil  that  has  re- 
sulted from  those  methods  of  choosing  solicitors  that  this 
proposed  amendment  was  intended  to  remedy.  The  idea  of 
introducing  it  was  not  that  the  people  are  not  to  be  trusted  by 
any  manner  of  means.  I  believe  that  they  are  eminently  fit 
to  be  trusted.  But  this  office  is  one  that  cannot  be,  and  is 
not,  filled  by  intelligent  action  upon  the  part  of  the  people. 

The  office  of  solicitor,  while  in  reality  one  of  the  most  im- 
portant in  the  state,  is  usually  by  the  rank  and  file  of  the 
voters  regarded  as  very  unimportant,  and  as  more  of  a  polit- 
ical office  than  anything  else.  This  results  largely  on  ac- 
count of  the  insignificant  salary  which  is  attached  to  the 
office,  and  also  because  a  solicitor  is  seldom  brought  before 
the  people  unless  in  the  case  of  a  murder  trial  where  the  at- 
torney-general takes  charge,  and  where  he  receives  the  blame 
for  any  blunders,  and  the  credit  for  any  good;  although  it  is 
well  known  that  it  is  the  solicitor  that  generally  does  most  of 
the  work  in  those  cases.  This,  however,  is  an  important  office., 
and  it  is  so  because  the  solicitor  has  charge  in  general  of  the 
administration  and  prosecution  of  all  the  criminal  cases 
throughout  his  county,  and  because  he  has  immense  power  to 
work  evil  by  simply  not  doing  or  overdoing  in  these  cases, 
and  also  because  the  solicitor  controls  the  pay-roll  and  has 
power  to  summon  witnesses  at  large  expense  to*  the  county, 
and  has  the  power  to  subject  the  county  to  the  expense  of 
lengthy  investigations  of  criminal  matters. 

Now  how  is  the  solicitor  chosen  by  us,  the  people?  Have 
you  ever  attended  a  county  convention  in  which  a  solicitor 
was  nominated?  If  so,  you  have  some  knowledge  of  the  way 
it  is  done.  For  instance,  in  one  convention  there  was  one 


792    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

man  with  three  followers,  and  he  was  the  candidate  for  so- 
licitor, and  his  three  followers  were  wanted  in  addition  to  the 
other  delegates  who  were  pledged  in  order  to  put  in  an  excel- 
lent man  for  county  commissioner — these  three  delegates 
were  what  was  necessary  to  elect  him.  Of  course,  in  return 
for  the  votes  of  these  delegates;,  the  followers  of  the  candidate 
for  county  commissioner  would  vote  for  the  candidate  for 
solictior — not  on  account  of  his  fitness — they  knew  nothing 
about  his  fitness,  nor  did  they  care.  That  is  the  way  a  candi- 
date is  chosen  to  fill  this  important  office.  He  has  a  good 
chance  for  the  nomination  if  he  can  control  three  or  four 
delegates  that  will  vote  as  he  tells  them.  That  is  the  way  the 
voice  of  the  people  is  heard. 

And  I  say  that  under  the  present  system  evil  has  been  felt, 
and  I  say  it  is  due  to  that  method  of  choosing  the  solicitors. 
It  is  for  you  to  judge  whether  that  is  so. 

The  evil  that  has  been  felt  is  not  confined  to  one  county. 
Of  course,  in  my  county,  and  in  our  day,  there  is  nothing  to 
complain  of,  but  in  some  of  the  counties  of  this  state  we  have 
had  solicitors  that  were  not  worthy  to  fill  the  offices  they 
held.  This  is  not  the  case  in  Hillsborough,  where  it  is  an  im- 
portant office  and  where  quite  a  heavy  salary  is  attached.  A 
solicitor  in  one  of  the  counties  of  this  state  is  at  the  present 
time  under  an  indictment  in  the  Dominion  of  Canada,  as  I 
am  informed,  for  blackmail  and  conspiracy,  of  which  I  hope 
he  is  wholly  innocent,  but  nevertheless  under  indictment.  A 
solicitor  in  one  of  the  counties — possibly  a  different  county- 
came  very  near  to  getting  into  trouble  with  a  grand  jury,  and 
did  get  into  trouble  with  the  court,  from  which  trouble,  how- 
ever, he  came  out  all  right.  He  is  no  longer  solicitor  and 
will  not  be  again. 

I  say  if  we  have  the  solicitors  appointed  by  that  part  of  the 
people  that  knows  their  qualifications  and  their  abilities,  their 
faithful  attention  to  business,  and  their  integrity,  we  should 
mot  have  so  frequent  scandals,  and  we  should  not  find  a  so- 
licitor putting  a  county  to  the  expense  of  taking  three  days 
in  the  investigation  of  an  immaterial  matter.  We  should  not 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  793 

have  the  scandals  which,  we  have  to-day.  I  am  sorry  to  talk 
these  things  here,  but  it  is  necessary. 

As  I  understand,  that  portion  of  "us,  the  people,"  who  best 
understand  the  reputation  and  character  of  the  lawyers  as 
made  up  of  the  judges  before  whom  they  practice.  The 
judges  of  our  superior  court  have  no  temptation  to  appoint 
incompetent  men.  They  have  no  temptation,  or  if  they  have 
they  will  resist  the  temptation  to  appoint  a  corrupt  man  to  the 
office  of  solicitor.  If  they  are  appointed  by  the  court  I  think 
it  will  undoubtedly  tend  to  the  advancement  in  character  of 
the  men  that  are  appointed. 

Up  to  1877  solicitors  were  appointed  by  the  governor  and 
council,  and  up  to  that  time  we  had  in  my  county  such  men 
as  Hon.  J.  S.  H.  Frink,  not  then  as  eminent  as  now  but  the 
same  man;  Albert  E.  Hatch,  now  dead,  and  Charles  H.  Bell, 
later  United  States  senator  and  governor  of  this  state,  and 
other  eminent  lawyers  of  the  state. 

We  had  good  men  under  the  appointive  system  up  to  1877, 
and  I  think  it  would  be  better  to  have  that  same  system  now 
than  to  have  the  solicitors  elected  by  the  people,  but  in  order 
to  avoid  any  danger  of  making  this  a  political  office  we  desire 
that  they  shall  be  appointed  by  the  courts  and  not  by  the  gov- 
ernor and  council.  We  do  not  want  them  appointed  by  the 
governor  and  council,  in  the  first  place,  because  we  are  all 
aware  that  appointments  by  the  governor  and  council  are  to 
some  extent  personal,  and  to  some  extent  political — not  to  a 
great  extent,  perhaps,  but  still  those  influences  have  some 
weight.  Neither  can  the  governor  and  council  investigate  or 
know  the  character  of  the  candidates  as  well  as  the  court.. 

This  plan  was  referred  to  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial 
Department,  and  the  report  which  they  have  made  embodies 
a  resolution  that  the  solicitors  shall  be  appointed  by  the  court 
and  commissioned  by  the  governor  and  council.  It  seems  to 
me  that  will  commend  itself  not  merely  to  the  lawyers,  but  to 
all  of  this  body. 

I  will  not  take  further  time  to  debate  this  question.  I  had 
trusted  that  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  Judge  Blodgett, 


794    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  chairman  of  the  Committee  on  the  Judicial  Department, 
would  be  here  and  he  intended  to  be  here  and  speak  on  this 
question,  but  he  is  suffering  from  the  result  of  a  railroad 
injury  and  is  unable  to  be  here  at  this  time. 

I  trust  this  Convention  will  ratify  the  action  of  that  emi- 
nent committee  and  will  pass  this  amendment  to  the  people 
for  them  to  a.ct  upon,  and  then  if  the  people  still  desire  to  re- 
tain the  present  system  of  electing  solicitors,  they  can  do  so. 

Mr.  Jewett  of  Laconia — The  resolution  I  understand  pro- 
vides for  the  appointment  of  solicitors  by  the  court  instead  of 
the  present  method  of  electing  by  the  people.  I  would  agree,, 
as  a  member  of  the  profession  who  is  brought  somewhat  in 
contact  with  the  office  of  the  county  solicitor,  that  some  better 
method  could  probably  be  devised  for  filling  that  office  than 
the  present  method  of  election.  I  would  not,  however,  for 
one  moment  cast  any  sort  of  reflection  upon  any  county  so- 
licitor with  whom  I  have  been  brought  in  contact.  My  judg- 
ment is  that  a  better  method  of  filling  this  office  could  be 
suggested  than  that  which  is  now  in  force,  but.  I  would  not,  so 
far  as  my  experience  has  gone,  want  to  agree  with  the  gentle- 
man from  Exeter,  Mr.  Fuller,  that  the  appointment  should  be 
made  by  the  court.  I  would  agree  with  the  general  proposi- 
tion that  the  office  could  better  be  filled  and  we  would  get 
better  satisfaction  if  it  could  be  taken  out  from  politics  and 
made  an  appointive  office.  I  think,  however,  that  the  office 
should  be  filled  by  appointment  by  the  governor  and  council, 
and  I  would  give  that  method  my  approval.  I  would  most 
certainly  agree  to  that,  and  I  think  the  legal  profession  stand 
with  me,  and  the  solicitors  of  the  different  counties,  I  think, 
would  be  very  glad,  almost  to  a  man,  to  agree  to  that  proposi- 
tion. While,  of  course,  it  is  not  for  the  legal  profession  to 
dictate  to  this  Convention  what  the  method  shall  be  for  filling 
this  office,  yet  by  their  profession  the  lawyers  of  this  Conven- 
tion are  likely  to  have  a  more  definite  idea  and  perhaps  better 
judgment  of  how  this  should  be  than  the  ordinary  person 
would  have. 

I  move  that  the  resolution  reported  by  the  Committee  on 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  795 

the  Judiciary  Department  be  amended  so  that  the  appoint- 
ment be  made  by  the  governor  and  council,  and  I  certainly 
hope  the  Convention  may  see  fit  to  adopt  that  amendment. 

Mr.  Fuller  of  Exeter — I  second  the  motion. 

Mr.  Stone  of  Andover — I  have  sincerely  hoped  that  I  could 
keep  quiet  to-day,  but  on  such  an  amendment  as  that  I  must 
express  my  views. 

I  had  intended  to  vote  for  the  bill  presented  by  the  com- 
mittee, but  this  changes  it  entirely.  If  the  solicitors  are  to 
be  capable  men  and  the  reason  that  they  are  not  is  because 
the  people  cannot  judge  rightly  of  the  character  of  men 
necessary  to  fill  that  office,  and  if  the  office  is  to  be  filled  by 
people  who  are  capable  of  judging  them,  of  all  persons  it  is 
for  the  court  to  appoint  solicitors,  and  not  the  governoT  and 
council. 

Whatever  may  be  done  with  this  resolution,  whether  it  is- 
passed  as  reported  by  the  committee  or  not,  I  sincerely  trust 
that  the  office  will  not  be  taken  from  the  people  and  com- 
mitted to  the  governor  and  council.  If  we  are  to  correct  the 
present  method,  let  us  make  the  correction  in  a  way  that  will 
entirely  remove  the  office  from  politics  and  from  other  in- 
fluences, and  place  it  in  the  hands  of  the  court. 

Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester — Mr.  President.  Just  one  word. 
The  Convention  will  bear  in  mind  that  up  to  1876  the  county 
solicitors  of  the  state  were  appointed  by  the  governor  and 
council,  and  that  the  Convention  of  that  year  took  the  power 
of  appointment  away  from  the  governor  and  council  and  pro- 
vided for  an  election  by  the  people.  That  amendment  was 
submitted  to  the  people  of  the  state  and  the  people  ratified  it. 
Are  we  going  back  to  a  condition  of  things  that  existed  be- 
fore the  people  had  a  chance  to  express  their  opinion  on  the 
change,  and  for  any  reason  that  has  been  offered  here  ? 

I,  myself,  believe  that  it  would  be  an  ideal  thing  if  the 
county  solicitors,  who  are  really  the  agents  of  the  court  in  a 
good  many  respects,  were  appointed  by  the  court;  but  unless- 


796    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

there  is  to  be  a  change  so  the  court  shall  make  the  appoint- 
ment, I  shall  most  heartily  oppose  any  change.  I  think, 
rather  than  to  have  the  appointment  made  by  the  governor 
and  council,  as  it  used  to  be  and  as  contemplated  by  the 
amendment  proposed,  it  is  better  to  keep  it  in  the  hands  of 
the  people  where  it  now  resides. 

Mr.  Fellows  of  Tilton — The  committee  were  unanimous  on 
the  new  draft  as  read  and  reported,  and  the  gentleman  from 
Exeter,  Mr.  Fuller,  was  contented  with  that.  The  gentleman 
from  Laconia  has  in  some  way  withdrawn  the  gentleman  from 
Exeter  from  his  first  position. 

The  adoption  of  this  amendment  as  proposed  in  the  report 
of  the  committee  will  leave  the  appointment  in  the  hands  of 
the  superior  court,  the  governor  and  council  to  commission 
the  appointees.  No  persons  will  be  better  able  to  judge  as  to 
the  qualifications  of  the  candidates  for  this  position  than  the 
.judges  of  the  superior  court,  and  it  will  come  just  as  far  from 
being  a  partisan  appointment  as  it  can  possibly  be. 

I  hope  the  amendment  suggested  by  the  gentleman  from 
Laconia,  which  is  an  amendment  I  do  not  think  he  has  had 
in  mind  more  than  five  or  ten:  minutes,  will  not  prevail. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  am  not  afraid  of  going  back- 
ward if  I  have  gone  forward  on  the  wrong  road. 

I  am  opposed  toi  the  election  of  solicitors  by  the  people, 
and  I  am,  in  favor  of  having  them  appointed  by  the  gov- 
ernor and  council.  I  am  not  in  favor  of  having  them  ap- 
pointed by  the  superior  court,  which  court  should  not  be 
made  a  part  of  the  political  machinery  of  the  state. 

The  recommendation  of  the  majority  of  the  committee, 
with  due  respect  to  the  committee,  I  think  is  unsound.  It 
says  that  the  court  shall  nominate  the  solicitors,  and  the  gov- 
ernor and  council  shall  commission  them.  How  much  power 
of  appointment  does  that  give  the  governor  and  council?  I 
wish  the  committee  had  brought  itself  to  advise  a  recommen- 
dation that  both  the  county  commissioners  and  the  solicitors 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  797 

should  be  appointed.  The  reasons  why  it  is  not  wise  to  have 
them  elected  by  the  people  are  very  evident  and  need  not  be 
stated  here. 

Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough — I  happen  to  be  a  resident  of 
one  of  the  most  populous  counties  in  the  state — the  county 
of  Hillsborough.  Under  the  system  which  now  prevails  we 
have  elected  three  different  solicitors.  The  first  solicitor  was 
the  Hon.  Eobert  M.  Wallace,  who  is  now  one  of  the  superior 
court  judges  of  this  state.  The  second  was  James  P.  Tuttle 
of  Manchester,  who  served  in  that  capacity  ten  years  with 
ability  and  honor  to  the  county  and  to  the  position,  and  to  the 
satisfaction  of  every  citizen,  I  believe,  in  the  county  of  Hills- 
borough.  Last  year  we  elected  another  gentleman,  and  there 
is  no  doubt  but  what  if  he  is  a  successful  man  he  will  con- 
tinue in  that  office  by  the  will  of  the  people  for  another  ten 
years.  Now,  gentlemen,  we  have  had  excellent  success  in  our 
county  under  this  present  system  of  election  by  the  people, 
and  if  two  years  from  now  we  find  that  we  have  made  a  mis- 
take, we  can  rectify  it  at  the  polls.  I  hope,  therefore,  and  I 
move  that  this  resolution  and  the  accompanying  resolutions 
be  all  laid  upon  the  table. 

The  modion  of  Mr.  Scott  of  Peterborough  was  stated  by 
the  chair  and  on  a.  viva  voce  vote  prevailed. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Ledoux  of  Xashua,  the  resolution  offered 
by  him  in  relation  to  initiative  and  referendum  was  indefi- 
nitely postponed. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster  offered  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  when  this  Convention  finally  adjourn  to- 
day it  adjourn)  to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  President,  or,  in  case 
of  his  death,  at  the  call  of  the  governor  of  the  state/' 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.   dementi  of  Manchester,  from  the  Committee  on 
Finance,  submitted  the  following  report: 


798    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
The  Committee  on  Finance  present  the  following  report: 

They  recommend  that  the  secretary  be  authorized  to  make 
up  the  pay-roll  of  the  members  of  this  Convention  as  follows: 

Eighteen  days'  service,  at  $3  per  day,  for  413 

members $22,302.00 

That  the  officers  and  employes  be  allowed  the  respective 
sums  placed  opposite  their  names: 

T.  H.  Madigan,  Jr.,  secretary $154.00 

L.  Ashton  Thorpe,  assistant  secretary 154.00 

John  K.  Law,  sergeant-at-arms 76.00 

George  W.  Allen,  doorkeeper 54.00 

W.  W.  Lovejoy,  doorkeeper 54.00 

Charles  W.  Torr,  doorkeeper 54.00 

M.  L.  Piper,  doorkeeper 6.00 

O.  H.  Brigham,  warden 54.00 

G.  W.  Johnson,  assistant  warden, 54.00 

W.  H.  Harriman,  page 36.00 

H.  B.  Jackson,  page 36.00 

H.  J.  Pelren,  page 36.00 

George  H.  Stone,  page 36.00 

Burton  W.  Lockhart,  chaplain 25.00 

C.  L.  Roberts,  page : . . . .  4.00 

F.  A.  Gardner,  page 4.00 

E.  M.  Nason,  janitor 30.00 

H.  L.  Ingalls,  assistant  janitor 20.00 

J.  W.  Lowry,  assistant  janitor 20.00 

S.  S.  Ford,  assistant  janitor 20.00 

F.  E.  Shuftleff,  stenographer 130.00 

James  E.  Dodge,  temporary  secretary 10.00 


$1,067.00 

That  the  following  bills  for  printing  and  other  purposes 
be  allowed: 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  799 

Fred  Leighton,  Concord  Patriot $50.00 

J.  Ed.  Coffin,  Manchester  Union 50.00 

H.  C.  Pearson,  Concord  Monitor 50.00 

G.  W.  Fowler,  Manchester  Union 50.00 

James  M.  Cooper,  Manchester  News 50.00 

I.  E.  Keeler,  Boston  Globe 50.00 

A.  H.  Robinson,  Boston  Herald 50.00 

E.  A.  McQuade,  Manchester  Mirror 50.00 

Susan  E,  Morrison,  telegraph  operator 25.00 


$425.00 

That  the  following  bills  for  printing  and  other  purposes 
be  allowed: 

S.  A.  Carter,  printing $97.73 

I.  C.  Evans  company 16.00 

I.  C.  Evans  company 369.05 

J.  Phaneuf  &  Son 21.00 

Arthur  E.  Clarke 3.35 

Rumford  Printing  company 63.42 

Manchester  Union 127.50 

Concord  Monitor 144.50 

Rev.   Mr.   Reed 3.00 

Rev.  Mr.  Buckshorn 3.00 

F.  P.  Mace,  for  blanks .50 

A.  H.  Britton  &  Co.,  supplies 12.65 

E.  C.  Eastman  &  Co ' 30.11 

Patriot  Job  Printing  company,  cards 1.75 

John  H.  Dickson,  Jr.,  messenger 5.00 

Xelson  "W.  Page,  contesting  seat 20.00 


$918.56 

And  the  total  amount  of  bills  as  approved  by  the  Finance 
Committee  is  $24,712.56. 


800    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

That  the  payment  of  the  mileage  roll  of  the  mem- 
bers of  this  Convention,  as  made  up  by  the 
secretary,  amounting  to  49,522  miles $4,952.20 

And  the  mileage  roll  of  the  officers  and  employes, 

which  is  1,494  miles 149.40 


Total $5,101.60 

together  with  the  printing  of  the  journal,  and  the  proposed 
amendments  to  tlie  Constitution,  and  all  other  bills  in  con- 
nection, with  the  session  of  this  Convention,  be  deferred  until 
an  appropriation  to  cover  the  same  has  been  made  by  the  in- 
coming legislature. 

That  the  officers  and  employes'  mileage  roll  be  as  follows: 

T.  H.  Madigan,  Jr 2 

L.  Ashton  Thorpe 40 

John  K.  Law 86 

George  W.  Allen 362 

Warren  W.  Lovejoy 234 

Charles  W.  Torr 122 

Martin  L.  Piper 60 

George  W.  Johnson 1 2 

George  H.  Bingham 72 

Walter  H.  Harriman 76 

Harry  B.  Jackson 232 

Harry  J.  Pelren 2 

George  C.  Stone 126 

Eev.  Burton  W.  Lockhaxt 40 

Charles  L.  Koberts 2 

Fred  A.  Gardner 36 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  recommendations  adopted. 

Mr.  Buxton  of  Boscawen,  for  the  committee  to  whom  was 
referred  the  matter  of  the  publication  of  the  proceedings  of 
the  Convention,  reported  the  following  resolution: 


FKIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  801 

"Resolved,  That  the  official  reporter  be  directed  to  make  a 
copy  of  the  debates  verbatim,  not  including  addresses  in  Com- 
mittee of  the  Whole  by  persons  not  members  of  the  Conven- 
tion,, and  that  he  be  paid  in  full  for  his  services  in  copying 
said  debates  the  usual  compensation  of  twenty  cents  for  each 
hundred  words,  and  that  his  account  be  audited  by  the  gov- 
ernor., who  shall  draw  his  warrant  for  the  same. 

"Resolved,  That  the  secretary  of  the  Convention  be  in- 
structed to  supervise  the  printing  of  the  journal  of  the  Con- 
vention, and  to  prepare  and  cause  to  be  printed  therewith  a 
proper  and  extended  index,  under  suitable  headings,  for  ready 
reference  to  names,  towns,  and  subjects;  and  that  his  bill  for 
compensation  therefor,  when  audited  and  approved  by  the? 
governor  and  council,  be  allowed  and  paid. 

"Resolved,  That  the  secretary  be  instructed  to  procure  as 
soon  as  possible  after  the  close  of  the  Convention  2,200 
printed  copies,  in  pamphlet  form,  of  said  journal,  to  be  dis- 
tributed as  follows  under  the  direction  otf  the  secretary  of 
state:-  One  copy  to  each  member  and  officer  of  the  Conven- 
tion, one  copy  to  each  town,  to  be  kept  in  the  office  of  the 
town  clerk;  one  copy  toi  each  secretary  of  other  states  and  ter- 
ritories, to  be  placed  in  their  respective  state  or  territorial 
libraries;  one  copy  to  each  public  institution  of  learning  in 
our  state;  one  copy  to  each  public  or  circulating  library  in  our 
state;five  copies  -to  Dartmouth  college;  five  copies  to  the  New 
Hampshire  College  of  Agriculture  and  Mechanic  Arts;  five 
copies  to  the  New  Hampshire  Historical  society;  ten  copies  to 
the  New  Hampshire  state  library;  500  copies  to  be  reserved 
for  the  use  of  members  of  future  conventions;  and  the  re- 
mainder to  be  disposed  of  at  the  discretion  of  the  secretary  of 
state. 

"Resolved,  That  in  the  event  of  the  appropriation  made  for 
this  Convention  be  exhausted  before  the  publication  of  the 
journal  as  above  provided,  that  the  incoming  legislature  be 
requested  to  make  such  further  appropriation  as  may  be  neces- 
sary to  carry  into  effect;  the  object  of  these  resolutions,  and 
51 


802    JOUBNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

that  the  President  of  this  Convention  be  instructed  to  see  that 
this  matter  is  presented  to  said  legislature." 

The  report  was  accepted  and  the  resolution  adopted. 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth  offered  the  following  resolu- 
tion: 

"Resolved,  That  there  be  printed  and  distributed  among  the 
•delegates,  for  distribution  by  them,  5,000  copies,  in  a  separate 
pamphlet,-  of  the  proceedings  of  the  Convention  upon  the 
propositions  concerning  trusts,  including  the  propositions 
themselves,  the  speeches,  and  the  record  of  the  action  of  the 
Convention." 

The  resolution  was  lost. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  move  that  the  time  for  sub- 
mitting to  the  people  the  proposed  amendments  adopted  by 
the  Convention  be  the  second  Tuesday  of  March,  1903. 

Mr.  Everett  of  Nashua — I  move  to  amend  the  resolution  of 
Mr.  Chandler  so  that  the  time  for  submitting  to  the  people 
the  amendments  agreed  to  by  the  Convention  be  at  the  No- 
vember election,  1904. 

"The  motion  to  amend  was  lost. 

The  question  being  upon  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  of 
Mr.  Chandler,  the  same  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Mitchell  of  Concord  offered  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  sincere  thanks  of  the  Convention  are 
hereby  tendered  to  Professor  James  F.  Colby,  for  his  pains- 
taking, exhaustive,  and  scholarly  labors  in  the  preparation  of 
the  excellent  manual  of  the  Convention,  which  has  been  so 
useful  and  is  so  highly  appreciated  by  the  members  of  the 
^Convention.  Through  the  use  of  this  serviceable  book,  the 
members  of  the  Convention  have  been  able  to  more  intelli- 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  803 

gently,  expeditiously,  and  thoroughly  consider  the  various 
propositions  presented  for  action." 

The  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted  by  a  rising  vote. 

(Mr.  Little  of  Manchester  in  the  chair.) 
Mr.  Cross  of  Manchester  offered  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  be  presented 
to  the  Hon.  Frank  S.  Streeter  for  the  ability  and  impartiality 
with  which  he  has  presided  over  its  deliberations/' 

And  said: 

Mr.  Chairman:  It  is  a  pleasure  to  me  to  present  this  reso- 
lution for  your  adoption.  I  congratulate  you,  gentlemen,  first 
that  you  have  met  here  and  from  day  to  day  have  deliberated 
and  have  considered  so  fairly,  have  considered  so  impartially, 
with  zeal  each  for  his  own  section  and  each  for  his  own  ideas. 
Most  of  the  amendments  to  the  Constitution  that  have  been 
presented  have  been  voted  down.  Some  of  us  have  been  dis- 
appointed, but  most  of  us  are  satisfied  with  the  amendments 
agreed  to. 

I  knew  something  of  the  Convention  of  1850.  I  saw  it  and 
the  men  who  sat  in  it,  and  I  saw  the  Convention  of  1876.  I 
was  a  member  of  the  Convention  of  1889,  and  in  ability,  in 
caution,  and  carefulness  of  detail  this  Convention  is  not  in- 
ferior to  either  of  the  others,  but  in  my  judgment  surpasses 
either  of  them. 

And  allow  me  to  say  to  my  country  friends — I  was  born  a 
-countryman,  I  lived  a  countryman  for  some  years,  and  I  love 
my  country  home.  "Dear  is  that  school-boy  spot  I  shall  ne'er 
forget,  though  there  I  am  forgot."  But  I  am  now  in  a  city. 
I  think  I  am  true  in  my  allegiance  to  my  early  home,  but  I  am 
bound  in  honor  in  accepting  a  place  in  this  Convention  to 
contend  within  reasonable  limits  for  what  my  constituents 
approve.  My  friends  from  the  country  towns:  If  in  the  legis- 
lature your  rights  are  attacked,  if  any  wolf  comes  around  your 


804     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

fold,  I  assure  you  that  every  man  from  our  city,,  every  man 
from  every  other  city  of  the  state,  will  come  to  your  rescue, 
and  will  hold  your  rights  as  near  and  as  dear  as  their  own. 

General  Streeter,  allow  me,  my  dear  friend,  for  such  you 
are — my  friend  and  my  brother — allow  me  to  congratulate 
you  that  you  have  had  the  pleasure  and  the  honor  of  presiding 
with  such  marked  ability  over  this  Convention.  It  is  a  proud 
day  for  you,  and  it  will  be  a  proud  memory  for  you  and  your 
friends  as  long  as  you  live.  If  you  never  seek  or  never  receive 
another  honor  in  your  life,  this  in  itself  is  a  crowning  honor, 
and  I  congratulate  you  most  heartily  and  most  sincerely. 

Mr.  Chairman,  I  am  an  old  fellow,  as  some  think,  but  I 
want  to  say  a  wo-rd  further  and  I  don't  want  these  reporters 
to  know  it.  The  door  is  closed,  and  this  must  not  be  written 
down.  I  am  going  to  talk  just  a  word  to  my  brethren  here, 
to  all  the  members  of  this  Convention.  I  don't  know  as  I 
ought  to*,  but  an  old  fellow  is  apt  to  be  garrulous,  so  I  want 
to  say  a  few  words  more  and  it  must  not  go  into*  the  record — I 
protest. 

Gentlemen  of  the  Convention,  I  was  in  this  building — the 
room  has  changed  a  little — in  1848,  a  member  of  the  legisla- 
ture. I  was  a  member  of  the  legislature  of  1849,  of  1876,  and 
otf  1877,  and  of  the  Convention  of  1889.  Now,  as  I  look 
around,  I  ask  where  are  the  men  of  1848  and  1849?  I  see  sons 
of  two  of  my  friends  from  Newport,  who  were  here  in  1849, 
and  these  sons  have  woirthily  represented  their  fathers.  I  re- 
member Edwards  and  Chamberlain  from  Keene;  Hatch  and 
Goodwin,  and  W.  H.  Y.  Hackett  from  Portsmouth;  from  Exe- 
ter, my  dear  friend  who  was  my  room-mate,  General  Marston; 
from  Nashua,  my  brothers  and  my  dear  friends,  General 
Stevens  and  George  Y.  Sawyer.  I  could  go  into  almost  every 
town  and  city  represented  by  you  and  call  to  memory  the 
names  of  men  that  were  with  me  in  years  long  ago*.  I  stand 
almost  alone.  You  may  think  it  a  sad  hour  for  me.  In  one 
sense  it  may  be  called  a  sad  hour.  But  still,  gentlemen,  every 
year  and  every  day  brings  to  me  something  brighter  than  the 
past. 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  805 

Mr.  Chairman  and  gentlemen,  as  we  are  about  to  part, 
should  I  say  farewell?  No.  There  is  no  such  word  in  my 
vocabulary  as  farewell,  with  the  usual  idea  of  sadness  in  it.  I 
prefer  that  good  old  Saxon  word,  "good-by,"  to  leave  with 
you,  which  is  "God-speed,"  or  "God  blessi  you/'  Members  of 
this  Constitutional  Convention  of  1902,  men  from  the  hills 
and  from  the  cities,  "Good-by."  We  may  meet  again  to- 
morrow, or  if  not  to-morrow,  or  to-morrow,  yet  in  some 
brighter  and  better  clime  we  shall  surely  meet  again. 

Mr.  Jordan  of  Concord — Mr.  Chairman,  I  would  ask  if  you 
would  confer  a  favor  upon  me,  to  allow  me  to  shake  hands 
with  that  good,  venerable,  odd  man.  His  words  have  re- 
minded me  of  the  words  of  another,  "Love  one  another  as  1 
have  loved  you.'7  That  man  brought  to  my  mind  the  words 
that  were  uttered  back  in  ancient  days,  and  those  words  are 
still  true,  according  to  my  belief.  It  is  a  pleasure  to  touch  the 
hand  of  such  a  man  as  this. 

Mr.  Xorris  of  Portsmouth; — I  rise  to  second  the  resolution 
of  the  distinguished  gentleman,  from  Manchester.  I  desire  to 
bear  testimony  to  the  strict  impartiality,  the  uniform  cour- 
tesy and  the  great  ability  with  which  the  President  of  this 
Convention  has  fulfilled  the  duties  of  his  office. 

The  resolution  was  unanimously  adopted  by  a  rising  vote. 

The  President,  having  resumed  the  chair,  addressed  the 
Convention  as  follows: 

I  cannot  fail  to  be  deeply  moved  by  this  expression  of  your 
approbation  and  good  will.  I  know  I  shall  be  pardoned  if  I 
especially  voice  that  feeling  of  affection  which  for  so  many 
years  I  have  entertained  for  my  old  friend,  the  venerable 
mover  of  this  resolution,  and  to  express  my  gratification  that 
that  friendship  was  so  securely  fixed  that  it  could  not  be  dis- 
turbed or  interrupted  by  any  combination  of  circumstances. 

I  wish  I  might  find  fitting  words  to  express  the  appreciation 


806     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

which  I  have  for  the  kindly  courtesy  and  the  friendly  coopera- 
tion received  from  each  and  all  of  yotu.  It  has  been  my  pur- 
pose to  administer  the  will  of  the  Convention — your  will— 
with  fairness  and  justice  to  all.  I  cannot  hope  that  I  have  al- 
together succeeded,  but  your  friendly  expressions  inspire  in 
me  the  hope  that  you  believe  the  effort  has  been  made. 

The  high  character  of  the  men  composing  this  Convention, 
the  eminent  ability  with  which  the  debates  have  been  con- 
ducted, the  uniform  courtesy  shown  in  the  discussion,  and  the 
sincere  attempt  to  arrive  at  right  results,  will  make  this  Con- 
vention well  and  favorably  remembered  by  the  people,  and 
will  be  a  dear  memory  to  each  and  every  member. 

One  of  the  problems  with  which  you  have  been  dealing  has 
presented  the  greatest  difficulties  and  its  correct  solution  de- 
manded concessions  on  all  sides.  You  have  yielded  some- 
thing of  your  personal  views  that  the  general  good  of  the  state 
might  be  advanced.  All  controversy  here,  however  vigorous 
and  sharp,  has  been  free  from  any  bitterness  of  partisan  feel- 
ing. Yooi  have  reached  a  conclusion  which  has  preserved  so 
far  as  now  practicable  the  just  rights  of  all,  and  when  the 
people  shall  soberly  and  reflectively  review  your  work  and  the 
difficulties  surrounding  it,  I  am  sure  they  will  say  on  the 
whole  that  the  work  was  well  done. 

Again,  gentlemen;  again,  my  friends,  allow  me  to  thank 
yooi,  one  and  all,  for  the  generous  and  friendly  courtesy  which 
you  have  shown  to  your  President  from  the  beginning. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  call  for  the  regular  order,  Mr. 
President. 

The  President — The  regular  order  is  the  resolution  offered 
by  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  in  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  as  a  substitute  for  the  resolution  offered  by  the 
gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  with  reference  ta 
free  passes.  I  would  say  that  the  records  show  that  those  mat- 
ters are  now  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — That  is  not  exactly  as  I  under- 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  807 

stand  the  situation .  The  resolution,  or  motion,  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Franklin  was  made  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  undertook  to  deal  with  it.  There 
was  no  quorum,  and  the  committee  rose,  and  last  evening  I 
asked  unanimoius  consent  that  the  Convention,  at  12  o'clock 
to-day,  in  Convention,  should  vote  by  yeas  and  nays  on  the 
proposition  of  the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  which  I  under- 
stand is  a  substitute  for  mine. 

The  President — The  chair  will  state  that  the  memorandum 
of  the  secretary  is  that  the  gentleman  from  Concord  asked 
unanimous  consent  that  the  resolution  of  the  gentleman  from 
Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  on  free  passes  be  voted  upon  at  12 
o'clock  by  a  yea  and  nay  vote.  But  the  resolution  of  the  gen- 
tleman from  Franklin  is  in  Committee  of  the  Whole,  and  the 
motion  to  go  into  a  Committee  of  the  Whole,  or  a  motion  to 
take  that  resolution  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole,  would 
seem  to  be  the  parliamentary  way  of  reaching  it. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — There  cannot  be  any  misunder- 
standing as  to  my  request  or  of  what  the  Convention  con- 
sented to  last  evening.  If  it  had  been  necessary  in  order  to> 
make  the  positive  order  of  the  Convention  effective  to  have- 
the  resolution  taken  from  tihe  Committee  of  the  Whole  and. 
laid  before  the  Convention,  that  fact  should  have  been  stated 
yesterday  evening.  Now  I  do  not  care  how  we  get  at  this 
question.  If  the  distinguished  parliamentarians  who  have 
recently  been  in  consultation  on  the  subject  have  evolved  a 
method  by  which  the  positive  vote  of  the  Convention  can  be; 
carried  o<ut,  I  am  content. 

The  President — The  chair  will  receive  any  motion,  but  the 
chair  rules  advisedly  that  the  resolution)  of  the  gentleman 
from  Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  and  the  resolution  of  the  gentle- 
man from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler,  are  now  in  the  Committee 
of  the  Whole,  and  the  Convention  cannot  vote  upon  those 
matters  without  a  vote  to  bring  them  from  the  Committee  of 
the  Whole  before  the  Convention,  or  without  going  into  a 
Committee  of  the  Whole  to  consider  them. 


808     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  move  that  the  resolution  of 
the  gentleman  from  Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  be  withdrawn  from 
the  Committee  of  the  Whole  in  order  that  the  order  of  the 
Convention  made  last  evening  be  carried  out. 

The  President — The  chair  will  rule  that  both  resolutions 
are  in  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — If  I  had  known  the  chair  was 
going  to1  make  that  statement  I  should  have  included  in  my 
motion  all  the  resolutions  with  reference  to  the  free  pass  ques- 
tion. 

'The  President — The  gentleman  from  Concord  moves  that 
his  resolution  on  free  passes,  and  the  resolution  of  the  gentle- 
man, from  Franklin,  Mr.  Leach,  which  was  offered  as  a  substi- 
tute, be  recalled  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole  and  laid 
before  the  Convention  for  action. 

Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin — It  seems  to  me  it  involves  recalling 
two  other  proposed  amendments  also. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — I  ask  leave  to  include  all  the 
resolutions  concerning  the  matter. 

The  President — The  question  is  upon  the  withdrawal  of  all 
the  resolutions  from  the  Committee  of  the  Whole. 

The  resolutions  are  ordered  withdrawn. 

The  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  resolution  offered 
by  Mr.  Leach  of  Franklin: 

"Resolved,  That  the  committee  report  to  the  Convention  in 
favor  of  the  indefinite  postponement  of  all  proposed  amend- 
ments relating  to  free  passes,  with  the  recommendation  that 
the  legislature  consider  the  subject  and  enact  such  legislation, 
If  any,  as  in  their  opinion  the  public  good  may  require." 

In  accordance  with  the  vote  of  the  Convention  Thursday 
evening  the  yeas  and  nays  were  ordered  taken. 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  809 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  affirmative: 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Flanders  of  Brentwood,  Sanders, 
Gillispie,  Abbott  of  Derry,  Morrill,  Follansby,  Wetherell, 
Leddy,  Hooke,  Sanborn  of  Hampstead,  Chase  of  Kingston, 
Pillsbury,  Walker  of  Newmarket,  Battles,  Evans,  Kelsey  of 
Nottingham,  Peaslee,  Howard,  Norris,  Healey,  Wheeler, 
Locke  of  Seabrook. 

STEAFFORD  COUNTY.  Locke  of  Barrington,  Leighton, 
Nealley,  Morang,  Folsom,  Nute  of  Dover,  Willson  of  Farm- 
ington,  Webb,  Moore,  Furbush,  Meader,  Springfield,  Gelinas, 
Cochrane,  Edgerly,  Locke  of  Somersworth,  Hall  of  Stratford. 

BELKAP  COUNTY.  Bryar,  Jewett,  Gorrell,  Thompson  of 
Laconia,  Smith  of  New  Hampton,  Knox,  Fellows. 

CARROLL  COUNTY.  Colman,  Spencer,  Hobson,  Gibson, 
Morrill  of  Conway,  Harmon,  Merrow,  Murch,  Meserve,  Brown 
of  Ossipee,  Dorr,  Page  of  Tamworth,  Morrison  of  Tufton- 
borough,  Sanborn  of  Wakefield,  Clow,  Hersey. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY.  Stone  of  Andover,  Frame,  Dudley 
of  Concord,  Virgin,  Lyford,  Mitchell  of  Concord,  Foster, 
Kimball  of  Concord,  Walker  of  Concord,  Howe,  Whittier,  In- 
galls,  Casey,  Ford  of  Danbury,  Caldwell,  Dolbeer,  Sanborn  of 
Franklin,  Stone  of  Franklin,  Leach,  Towne,  Wilson  of  Hill, 
Head,  Clough  of  London,  Todd,  Wyatt,  Miller,  Webster, 
Thompson  of  Warner,  Lang. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Woodbury  of  Bedford,  Kimball 
of  Bennington,  Whitaker  of  Deering,  Peavey,  Bacon,  Fogg, 
Powers  of  Hollis,  Marsh,  Tarbell,  Lambert,  Wilkinson,  Briggs, 
Cross,  Hunt>  Dodge  of  Manchester,  Boutwell,  Little,  Rose, 
Jones,  Robinson,  Tremblay,  Lord,  Farrington,  Harvey,  Pre- 
court,  Irwin,  Quirin  Joseph,  Allen,  Clement  of  Manchester, 
Littlefield,  Powers  of  Manchester,  McElroy,  Richer,  Plante, 
Guerin,  Hall  of  Manchester,  Paige  of  Manchester,  Whitaker  of 
Mason,  Gordon,  Raymond,  Hamblett,  Spring,  Everett,  Flood, 
Wason,  Woodbury  of  Nashua,  Proctor,  Runnells,  Shedd, 


810    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Mather,  Slattery,  McGlynn,  Morrison  of  Peterborough,  Scott, 
Richardson,  Hadley,  Simons,  Bales,  Chapman. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Cooke,  Learned,  Blake,  Farwell, 
Stearns,  Annett,  Taft,  Pressler,  Wright,  Foskett,  Hall  of 
Keene,  Newell,  Woodward,  Buckminster,  Clement  of  Surry, 
Day,  Stone  of  Troy,  Spaulding,  Goodnow,  Davis. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY.  Brooks,  Tenney,  Colby,  Hanson  of 
Goshen,  Burpee,  Holmes,  Noyes,  Barton,  Penniman,  Brown 
of  Springfield. 

GRAFTON  COUNTY.  Bucklin,  Dearborn  of  Ashland,  Morrill 
of  Bridgewater,  Chase  of  Bristol,  Richardson  of  Canaan, 
Avery,  Cumings,  Walker  of  Graf  ton,  Kidder,  Ward,  Westgate, 
Sloane,  Jewell  of  Hebron,  Flanders,  Glazier,  Dewey,  Hibbard, 
Morris,  Green  of  Littleton,  Melvin,  French  of  Orange,  Lam- 
prey of  Orford,  Craig  of  Rumney. 

Coos  COUNTY.  Wight  of  Berlin,  Moffett,  Murray,  Miles, 
Young  of  Clarksville,  Titus,  Britton,  Wight  of  Dummer, 
Evans,  Crawford,  Kent,  Phipps,  McKellips,  Watson,  Ripley, 
Hinman,  Aldrich  of  Whitefield,  Dodge  of  Whitefield. 

The  following  gentlemen  voted  in  the  negative: 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY.  Conley,  Sanborn  of  Auburn, 
Eaton,  Kimball  of  Danville,  Kelsey  of  Deerfield,  Towle, 
Weare,  Shaw,  Pollard,  de  Rochemont,  Gate,  Emery  S.  W., 
Paul,  Ham,  Cullen,  Sawyer  of  Rye,  Cole,  Jewell  of  South 
Hampton,  Wingate,  Clark  of  Windham. 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY.  Morrison  of  Dover,  Roberts,  Hanson 
of  Dover,  Hall  of  Dover,  Murphy,  Gunnison,  Nutter  of  Rol- 
linsford,  Leary,  Roy,  Morin. 

BELKNAP  COUNTY.  Colbath,  Clark  of  Center  Harbor, 
Cogswell,  Pulsifer  of  Laconia,  Busiel,  Lewis,  Smith  of  Mere- 
dith, Rogers. 

CARROLL  COUNTY.     Nickerson,  Dearborn  of  Eaton. 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  811 

MERRI3JACK  COUNTY.  Blodgett  of  Allenstown,  Buxton, 
Baker,  French  of  Bradford,  Foote,  Hollis,  Mies,  Lamprey  of 
Concord,  Chandler,  Jordan,  Wilkins,  Putnam,  Messer,  Chick- 
ering,  Green  of  Pittsfield,  Sawyer  of  Salisbury. 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY.  Hubbard,  Fessenden,  Colby, 
Paige  of  Goffstown,  Clyde,  Abbott  of  Manchester,  Green  of 
Manchester,  Starr,  Horan,  Glancy,  Sullivan,  Griffin,  Jennings, 
Hildreth  of  Manchester,  McAllister,  Greager,  Provost,  Boivin, 
Trinity,  Eotch,  Worcester,  Clough  of  Nashua,  Harriman,  Le- 
doux,  Desmarais,  Seavey. 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY.  Amidon,  Buckley,  Osgood,  Cass,  Mc- 
Clure. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY.     Stockwell,  Eossiter,  Bartlett,  Newton. 

GRAFT  ON  COUNTY.  Carbee,  Ashley,  Parker  of  Franconia, 
Colby  of  Hanover,  Drake,  Warden,  Eussell,  Wentworth. 

Coos  COUNTY.     Boudreau,  Thurston. 

And  221  gentleman  having  voted  in  the  affirmative  and  101 
gentlemen  having  voted  in  the  negative,  the  motion  to  substi- 
tute the  resolution  of  Mr.  Leach  prevailed. 

Mr.  Baker  of  Bow  offered  the  following  resolution: 

"Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  be  extended 
to  its  officers,  employes,  and  others  acting  in  connection  with 
it,  for  the  faithful  and  efficient  manner  in  which  they  have- 
performed  their  various  duties/' 

The  resolution  was  adopted. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — The  Committee  on  the  Time 
and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments 
Agreed  to  by  the  Convention  are  in  doubt  concerning  two  or 
three  matters  which  need  to  be  examined.  We  submit  to  the 
pleasure  of  the  Convention  the  question  whether  we  shall 
retire  now  and  endeavor  to  make  the  report  immediately,  or 
the  Convention,  adjourn  for  one  hour. 


$12    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

The  President — Will  the  gentleman  from  Concord  state  for 
the  convenience  of  the  Convention  whether  there  would  be 
any  suggestion  in  the  report,  of  the  committee  requiring  a 
quorum  to>  act  upon. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — There  might  be.  For  instance, 
the  form  of  ballot  is  under  consideration.  The  question  is, 
whether  yes  and  no  shall  be  printed  and  the  voter  required  to 
erase  yea  or  no,  or  whether  the  yes  and  no  shall  be  printed 
with  the  squares  opposite  and  the  voter  make  a  cross  in  one  or 
the  other  of  the  squares,  in  accordance  with  the  present 
method  of  voting.  There  are  several  questions  of  that  kind  on 
which  the  Convention  might  not  be  willing  to  accept  the  judg- 
ment of  the  committee. 

On  motion  of  Mr.  Jones  of  Manchester,  the  Convention 
took  a  recess;  until  1:45  o'clock  in  tlhe  afternoon. 

Upon  reassembling,  the  President  in  the  chair,  Mr.  Chand- 
ler of  Concord,  from  the  Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of 
Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the 
"Convention,  made  the  following  report: 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — Mr.  President  and  Gentlemen 
of  the  Convention:  The  amendments  to  the  Constitution 
which  have  been  considered  by  the  Committee  on  Time  and 
Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments  Agreed 
to  by  the  Convention  are  ten.  The  amendment  presented  by 
the  gentleman  from  Plymouth,  Mr.  Russell,  and  adopted  in 
one  vote,  has  been  divided  into  two  parts.  The  provision  re- 
lating to  the  examination  of  candidates  for  military  office  is 
one  part,  and  the  provision  with  reference  to  the  commissary- 
general  is  another. 

Your  committee,  Mr.  President,  has  examined  the  text  of 
;all  of  these  amendments  witih  great  care.  We  have  made  no 
•suggestions  except  in  one  case  where  one  word  has  been  in- 
serted. Otherwise  they  are  as  adopted  by  the  Convention, 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  813- 

and  I  hand  these  ten  amendments  to  the  secretary,  asking 
that  they  be  adopted  as  the  correct  text  of  the  amendments. 

The  committee  have  instructed  me  to  report  the  following 
order  to  he  adopted  by  the  Convention,  which,  as  it  has  been 
changed  by  me  recently  by  direction  of  the  committee,  I  will 
read  myself,  with  the  permission  of  the  Convention. 

THE  STATE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIEE. 

In  the  Year  of  Our  Lord  One  thousand  Xine  hundred  and 
Two. 

In  the  Convention  of  delegates  assembled  at  Concord  on 
the  first  Tuesday  of  December,  in  the  year  of  our  Lord  one 
thousand  nine  hundred  and  two,  for  the  purpose  of  revising 
the  Constitution  of  this  state,  in  pursuance  of  an  act  of  the 
legislature  passed  March  21,  1901, — 

"I.  Resolved:  That  the  alterations  and  amendments  pro- 
posed to  the  Constitution  shall  be  submitted  to  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  state,  at  meetings  which  shall  be?  duly  called  and 
held  in  the  several  towns,  wards  of  cities,  and  other  places  in 
the  state  on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March,  1903,  to  be  by  said 
voters  actedi  upon  at  said  meetings,  -or  any  adjournments 
thereof  within  the  same  week. 

"II.  Resolved:  That  the  selectmen  of  the  several  towns, 
wards,  and  places  in  the  state  be  and  are  hereby  directed  to 
insert,  in  their  warrants  calling  the  said  meetings,  an  article 
to  the  following  effect:  'To  take  the  sense  of  the  qualified 
voters  whether  the  alterations  and  amendments  of  the  Con- 
stitution proposed  by  the  Constitutional  Convention  shall  be 
approved/ 

"III.  Resolved:  That  the  sense  of  the  qualified  voters  shall 
be  taken  by  ballot  upon  each  of  the  following  questions  sub- 
mitted to  them  by  this  Convention: 

"1.     Do  you  approve  of  requiring  every  person  in  order  to 


JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

be  a  voter  or  eligible  to  office  to  be  able  to  read  the  Constitu- 
tion in  the  English  language  and  to  write,  the  requirement 
not  to  apply  toi  any  person  who  now  has  the  right  to  vote  nor 
to  any  person  who  shall  be  sixty  years  of  age  or  upwards  on 
January  1,  1904; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution? 

"2.  Do  you  approve  of  the  requirement  that  captains  and 
subalterns  in  the  militia  of  the  state  shall  before  their  nomi- 
nation and  appointment  be  examined  and  found  duly  quali- 
fied by  an  examining  board  appointed  by  the  governor; — as 
proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

"3.  Do  you  approve  of  striking  out  the  words  'the  com- 
missary-general' from  the  requirement  that  the  secretary  of 
state  and  the  state  treasurer  and  the  commissary-general, 
shall  be  chosen  by  the  legislature; — as  proposed  in  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

"4.  Do  you  approve  of  empowering  the  legislature  to  im- 
pose taxes  not  only  upon  polls  and  estates  but  also  upon  other 
classes  of  property,  including  franchises  and  property  when 
passing  by  will  or  inheritance; — as  proposed  in  the  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution? 

"5.  Do  you  approve  of  allowing  the  legislature  to  give 
police  courts  jurisdiction  to  try  and  determine,  subject  to  the 
respondent's  right  of  appeal  and  trial  by  jury,  criminal  cases 
wherein  the  punishment  is  less  than  imprisonment  in  the 
state's  prison; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Consti- 
tution? 

"6.  Do  you  approve  of  amending  the  Bill  of  Eights  by 
striking  out  the  word  'evangelical'  before  the  word  'princi- 
ples' and  inserting  the  word  'Christian'  and  striking  out  the 
word  'Protestant'  before  the  words  'teachers  of  piety,  religion, 
and  morality,'  and  striking  out  the  word  'towns'  in  two  places 
where  the  legislature  is  empowered  to  authorize  'towns,  par- 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  815 

ishes,  and  religious  societies'  to  support  and  maintain  teachers 
of  religion  and  morality;  and  striking  out  the  words  'and 
every  denomination  of  Christians'  and  inserting  the  words  'all 
religious  sects  and  denominations'  where  equal  protection  of 
the  law  is  assured; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the 
Constitution? 

"7.  Do  you  approve  of  striking  out  the  word  'male'  before 
the  word  'inhabitant'  in  the  clause  which  provides  that  every 
male  inhabitant  twenty-one  years  of  age  (with  certain  excep- 
tions) shall  have  a  right  to  vote;  which  clause  is  supplemented 
by  the  existing  provision  that  every  such  person  shall  be  con- 
sidered an  inhabitant  for  the  purpose  of  electing  and  being 
elected  to  office; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution? 

"8.  Do  you  approve  of  granting  to  the  general  court  all 
just  powers  possessed  by  the  state  to  enact  laws  to  prevent  the 
operations  within  the  state  of  all  persons  and  associations, 
trusts  and  corporations  who  endeavor  to  raise  the  price  of  any 
article  of  commerce  or  to  destroy  free  and  fair  competition  in 
the  trades  and  industries  through  combination,  conspiracy, 
monopoly,  or  any  other  unfair  means; — as  proposed  in  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

"9.  Do  you  approve  of  amending  the  provision  as  to  rep- 
resentation in  the  house  of  representatives  by  making  800  in- 
habitants necessary  to  the  election  of,  one  representative  and 
2,400  inhabitants  necessary  for  two  representatives  and  1,600 
necessary  for  each  additional  representative;  with  the  proviso 
that  a  town,  ward,  or  place-  having  less  than  800  inhabitants 
may  send  a  representative  a  proportionate  part  of  the  time;  or 
that  such  towns,  wards,  and  places  when  contiguous  may 
unite  to  elect  a  representative  if  each  town  so  decides  by 
major  vote; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitu- 
tion? 

"10.  Do  you  approve  of  giving  the  legislature  authority  to 
establish  more  than  one  place  of  public  meeting  within  the 


816    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

limits  of  each!  town  or  ward  in  the  state  for  the  casting  of 
votes  and  the  election  of  officers  under  the  Constitution,  and 
for  that  purpose  to  divide  any  town  or  ward  into  voting  pre- 
cincts;— as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

"TV.  Resolved:  That  the  results  of  the  votes  on  the  said 
questions  shall  be  recorded  and  copied  and  the  copies  sealed 
up,  directed  and  returned  by  the  town  clerks  to  the  secretary 
of  state,  on  or  before  the  fourth  Tuesday  of  March,  1903,  and 
said  .clerks  shall  be  subject  to  the  same  penalties  as  are  by  law 
prescribed  for  neglect  to  return  the  votes  for  governor,  and 
th,e  returns  shall  be  by  the  secretary  of  state  seasonably  laid 
before  the  governor  and  council. 

"V.  Resolved:  That  the  secretary  of  state  is.  hereby  di- 
rected to  furnish  to  the  town  clerks  of  the  different  towns, 
wards,  and  places  suitable  blanks  for  the  return  of  the  votes 
on  said  questions. 

"VI.  Resolved:  That  the  secretary  of  state  be  directed  to 
procure  toi  be  printed  one  hundred  and  twenty  thousand 
copies  of  such  parts  of  the  Constitution  as  are  altered  and 
amended  by  this  Convention  together  with  the  alterations 
and  amendments,  and  the  same  number  of  copies  of  the  ques- 
tions to  be  proposed  to  the  qualified  voters,  and  the  same 
number  of  these  resolutions,  and  to  cause  such  copies  to  be 
distributed  immediately  to  the,  town  clerks  of  the  respective 
towns,  wards,  and  places  in  the  state,  for  the  use  of  the  qual- 
ified voters,  in  numbers  proportionate  as  near  as  may  be  to  the 
numbers  of  the  legal  voters  in  the  said  respective  towns, 
wards,  and  places;  and  it  is  made  the  duty  of  said  clerks  im- 
mediately to  distribute  such  copies  among  said  voters. 

"VII.  Resolved:  That  the  secretary  of  state  be  also  re- 
quired to  furnish  not  less  than  120,000  printed  ballots  con- 
taining said  questions  to  be  thus  voted  upon,  and  to  distribute 
the  same  to  the  town  clerks  as  provided  in  the  preceding  reso- 
lution, a  reasonable  time  previous  to  said  meetings,  to  be  by 
them  seasonably  distributed  at  said  meetings. 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  817 

"Upon  the  said  "ballots  containing  the  questions  to  be  voted 
upon  and  tinder  each  question  thereon  shall  be  printed  the 
word  'Yes'  at  the  left  hand  with  a  square  near  it  and  at  the 
right  hand  the  word  'No',  with  a  square  near  it,  and  the  voter 
desiring  to  vote  'Yes'  upon  any  one  of  said  questions  shall 
make  a  cross  in  the  square  near  the  word  'Yes/'  and  if  he  de- 
sires to  vote  'No,'  he  shall  make  a  cross  in  the  square  near  the 
word  'No';  and  he  shall  do  this  as  to  each  question  upon 
which  he  desires  to  vote.  All  ballots  cast  where  no  cross  is 
made  in  a  square  under  any  question  shall  not  be  counted  as 
to  such  question. 

"The  secretary  of  state  shall  cause  to  be  printed  at  the  bot- 
tom of  each  ballot,  distributed  to  the  town  clerks,  a  note  in 
plain  anid  conspicuous  type  as  follows: 

"  'Every  voter  whoi  wishes  to  vote  'Yes'  will  make  a  cross 
in  the  square  near  the  word  'Yes.'     If  he  wishes  to  vote  'No' 
he  will  make  a  cross  in  the  square  near  the  word   'No.'     If 
he  make  no  cross  in  either  square  Ms  ballot  will  not  be 
counted.    Be  sure  and  vote  on  all  the  questions  submitted.' 

"VIII.  Resolved:  That  the  governor  and  council,  prior  to 
the  second  Tuesday  of  April,  1903,  shall  open  and  count  said 
votes;  and  make  a  record  thereof;  and  the  governor  shall 
forthwith  issue  his  proclamation  announcing  the  result  of  the 
vote  on  each  of  said  questions  submitted  to  the  people. 

"IX.  Resolved:  That  such  of  the  proposed  amendments  as 
shall  be  approved  by  the  requisite  number  of  votes,  shall  take 
effect  and  be  in  force  at  the  times  hereinafter  mentioned,  to 
wit:  The  amendment  relative  to  representation  in  the  house 
of  representatives  at  the  date  when  the  legislature  in  session 
at  its  adoption  or  next  in  session  thereafter  shall  adjourn  and 
the  other  amendments  when  their  adoption  is  proclaimed  by 
the  governor. 

"X.  Resolved:  That  these  resolutions,  signed  by  the  presi- 
dent of  this  convention  and  attested  by  the  secretary,  shall  be 
published  once  in  all  the  weekly  newspapers  of  the  state 

52 


818    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

authorized  to  publish,  the  public  laws  and  in  the  daily  news- 
papers; and  that  the  journal  of  the  convention,  including  the 
debates  in  full,  shall  be  printed  and  the  original  journal  to- 
gether with  all  the  files  of  the  convention  shall  be  deposited 
in  the  office  of  the  secretary  of  state/5 

The  President — Unless  otherwise  ordered,  this  report  will 
be  accepted,  and  the  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the  reso- 
lution submitted  by  the  committee. 

Mr.  Everett!  of  Nashua — Do  I  understand  that  this  word 
"No"  is  to  be  printed  at  the  left? 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — The  word  tffYes"  is  to  be  at  the 
left,  and  the  word  "No"  at  the  right. 

Mr.  Everett  of  Nashua — I  should  say  that  would  be  satis- 
factory. What  is  the  date  that  these  amendments  are  to  take 
effect? 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — All  the  amendments  but  one 
will  take  effect  immediately  after  their  adoption  in  April  or 
May  next.  Many  of  them,  as  the  delegates  will  realize,  give 
authority  to  the  legislature  to  act.  They  take  effect  imme- 
diately, and  the  legislature  in  session  at  the  time  they  take 
effect  will  act  under  them. 

With  reference  to  the  matter  of  representation,  that  re- 
quires action,  of  course,  by  the  legislature,  so  we  make  that 
to  take  effect  whenever  the  Igislature  that  may  be  in  session 
when  the  amendments  are  adopted  shall  adjourn,  or  whenever 
the  next  legislature  that  may  meet  shall  adjourn,  giving  the 
legislature  in  either  case  an  opportunity  to  apply  the  new 
principles  laid  down  in  the  constitutional  amendment  to  the 
towns  and  cities  of  the  state.  The  other  amendments  go  into 
effect  simultaneously  with  their  adoption. 

Mr.  Everett  of  Nashua; — The  explanation,  although  rather 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  819 

long,  is  not  clear  to  me.  What  I  want  to  understand  is, 
whether  the  coming  legislature  will  put  the  amendments  into 
effect. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord- — I  think  the  committee  thought 
the  next  legislature  would  either  adjourn  to  or  be  in  session 
on  the  second  Tuesday  of  March  next.  If  it  were  in  session, 
and  this  amendment  with  reference  to  representation  had 
been  defeated,  they  would  go  home.  If  they  found  it  was 
adopted,  they  would  undoubtedly  either  wait  and  enact  some 
measure  to  carry  the  amendment  into  practice,  or  would  ad- 
journ for  a  short  time  and  come  back. 

Mr.  Everett  of  Nashua — Why  not  make  this  matter  clear 
and  have  a  date  specified  when  this  matter  shall  be  acted 
upon? 

Mr.  Pillsbury  of  Londonderry — It  seems  to  me  that  the 
.gentlemen  have  both  lost  sight  of  the  fact  that  the  resolu- 
tion submitted  by  the  gentleman  from  Concord,  Mr.  Chandler, 
has  a  provision  that  the  returns  must  be  made  by  the  town 
•clerk  by  the  fourth  Tuesday  of  March,  so  it  would  hardly  be 
possible  or  probable  for  the  next  legislature  to  put  it  into 
effect. 

Mr.  Everett  of  Nashua — That  is  my  point.  Why  not  say 
here  in  what  legislature  it  shall  take  effect? 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — The  gentleman  from  Nashua, 
early  in  the  session,  joined  in  a  discussion  and  talked  to  the 
Convention  when  it  did  not  wish  to  hear  him.  I  do  not  wish 
to  talk  to  this  Convention  if  it  be  disinclined  to  hear  me,  any 
more  than  the  gentleman  from  Nashua.  But  I  see  that  if  I 
am  to  make  myself  clear  I  must  do  more  or  less  talking. 

It  .is  true,  as  the  gentleman  from  Londonderry  has  said, 
that  the  returns  are  not  necessarily  to  be  made  until  the 
fourth  Tuesday  of  March,  but  the  legislature  will  know  upon 
the  night  of  the  second  Tuesday  of  March  whether  the  amend- 


820     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

merits  are  adopted,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  and  they  can  act  ac- 
cordingly. I  have  said  that  the  amendment  relating  to  repre- 
sentation will  take  effect  at  the  adjournment  of  the  legislature 
which  may  be  then  in  session  or  if  none  is  in  session,  at  the 
adjournment  of  the  next  legislature. 

Mr.  Rogers  of  Tilton — It  struck  me  that  these  votes  might 
be  counted  by  the  governor  and  council  at  an  earlier  date  than' 
the  fourth  Tuesday  of  March,  and  that  there  might  be  a  pro- 
vision that  the  amendment  should  take  effect  at  the  adjourn- 
ment of  the  next  legislature.  Then  the  governor  could  keep 
the  legislature  in  session  until  they  had  an  opportunity  to  act 
upon  the  amendment. 

Mr.  Chandler  of  Concord — We  have  cut  down  the  time  for 
making  the  return  two  weeks,  and  that  is  about  as  short  a 
time  as  would  be  judicious.  Of  course  the  governor  and  coun- 
cil can  count  as  soon  as  they  please.  They  are  instructed  to- 
do  it  prior  to  a  certain  date,  but  they  can  do  it  earlier  if  they 
choose. 

Mr.  Kent  of  Lancaster — I  merely  wish  to  make  this  sugges- 
tion, that  if  the  amendment  in  regard  to  the  reduction  of  the 
legislature  takes  effect  at  the  adjournment  of  this  incoming 
legislature,  as  it  reduces  the  number  of  members  about  sev- 
enty-five, the  next  legislature  thereafter  would  be  so  much 
smaller,  and  it  would  save  an  additional  expenditure  of  about 
$15,000. 

The  President — The  question  is  upon  the  adoption  of  the 
resolution  submitted  by  the  committee. 

On  a  viva  voce  votte  the  affirmative  prevailed  and  the  reso- 
lution was  declared  adopted. 

Mr.  Sullivan  of  Manchester  presented  the  following,  which- 
was  unanimously  adopted: 


FRIDAY,  DECEMBER  19,  1902.  821 

"Resolved,  That  the  thanks  of  this  Convention  be  and  are 
hereby  extended  to  the  several  representatives  of  the  press 
for  the  able  and  accurate  reports  of  the  daily  proceedings  of 
the  Convention  and  for  their  courteous  treatment  of  the 
members." 

Mr.  Edgerly  of  Somersworth  moved  that  the  Convention 
.adjourn,  to  meet  at  the  call  of  the  President,  or,  in  the  event 
of  his  death,  at  the  call  of  the  governor  of  the  state. 

And  it  was  so  voted. 

T.  H.  MADIGAN",  JR.,  SECRETARY. 
A  true  record. 
Attest: 

T.  H.  MADIGAN,  JR.,  SECRETARY. 


APPENDIX  A. 


Tables  and  Information  Ordered  Printed  by 
Vote  of  the  Convention. 


APPENDIX  A. 


TABLE  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  SCOTT  OF  PETERBOROUGH. 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY— 1900. 

REPKESENTATIVES. 


TOWNS. 

Population. 

5 

0 

a 
i—  ( 

c<f 

% 

d 

q 

»—  i 

co" 
*o 
o 

a 

M 

Atkinson 

442 

Auburn 

682 

1 

1 

1 

Brentwood  

957 

1 

1 

1 

Candia.  ... 

1  057 

1 

1 

1 

Chester. 

861 

1 

1 

1 

Danville  

615 

1 

1 

1 

Deerfield  

1,162 

1 

1 

1 

Derry  

3  583 

3 

2 

1 

East  Kingston 

496 

1,611 

1 

1 

1 

Exeter.  

4,922 

4 

3 

2 

Fremont  . 

749 

1 

1 

1 

Greenland  

607 

1 

1 

1 

Hampstead  

823 

1 

1 

1 

Hampton  

1  209 

1 

1 

1 

Hampton  Falls 

560 

Kensington 

524 

Kingston  

1,132 

1 

1 

1 

Londonderry  .    . 

1  408 

1 

1 

1 

Newcastle 

581 

647 

1 

1 

1 

Ne  wington  

390 

Newmarket.. 

2  892 

2 

2 

1 

Newton. 

924 

1 

1 

1 

North  Hampton  

812 

1 

1 

1 

North  wood  

1,304 

1 

1 

1 

Nottingham. 

638 

1 

1 

1 

Plaistow  

1,027 

1 

1 

1 

10,637 

Ward  1  

2,641 

2 

2 

1 

Ward  2     ... 

3,105 

3 

2 

1 

WardS 

1  843 

2 

1 

Ward  4  

1,391 

1 

1 

"Ward  5  

1,654 

1 

1 

Raymond  ...                                     .... 

1,100 

1 

1 

Rye 

1  142 

1 

1 

2,041 

2 

1 

1 

Sandown  

400 

Seabrook  

1,497 

1 

1 

"  1 

South  Hampton. 

297 

Strath  am 

718 

1 

1 

1 

Windham  

641 

1 

1 

1 

44 

39 

34 

826     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


STRAFFORD  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population. 

T-T 
<4H 

o 
o 

q 

»—  i 

Inc.  of  2,000. 

Inc.  of  3,000. 

Barrington 

1  208 

1 

1 

1 

Dover  

13,207 

Ward  1  

2  387 

2 

1 

1 

Ward  2 

3  018 

3 

2 

1 

Ward  3  

2'  384 

2 

1 

1 

Ward  4  

3  581 

3 

2 

1 

Ward  5  

1,567 

1 

1 

1 

Durham  ...              

996 

1 

1 

1 

Farmington 

2  265 

2 

1 

1 

Lee  . 

545 

Madbury  ....                                

336 

Middleton. 

300 

Milton  

1  625 

1 

1 

1 

New  Durham 

625 

1 

1 

1 

Rochester  

8,466 

Wardl 

1  131 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  2  

1,222 

1 

1 

Ward  3.  ...                            

1  510 

1 

1 

Ward  4  

1,901 

2 

1 

Ward  5  

964 

1 

1 

Ward  6 

1  738 

1 

1 

Rollinsf  ord  

1,701 

1 

1 

7  023 

Ward  1  

1,285 

1 

1 

Ward  2  

1  167 

1 

1 

Ward  3  

1,104 

1 

1 

Ward  4  

2,183 

2 

1 

Ward  5  .   . 

1  284 

1 

1 

Strafford  

1,040 

1 

1 

32 

25 

23 

APPENDIX  A. 


82T 


BELKNAP  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population. 

s 

t) 

a 
i—  i 

Inc.  of  2,000. 

co~ 
*o 

d 

a 

IH 

Alton  

1,500 

1 

1 

Barnstead  

1  072 

1 

1 

Belmont  

1  294 

1 

1 

Center  Harbor  

422 

Gilford  

661 

1 

1 

1  100 

1 

1 

Laconia  

8  042 

Ward  1  

417 

Ward  2 

1  465 

I 

1 

I 

Ward  3  

1  073 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  4  

1  465 

1 

1 

1 

"Ward  5  

1  485 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  6  

2,137 

2 

1 

1 

Meredith  

1  713 

1 

1 

1 

New  Hampton  

852 

1 

1 

1 

Sanbornton. 

944 

1 

1 

1 

Tilton 

1  926 

2 

1 

1 

16 

14 

14 

828    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


CARROLL  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population. 

r-T 
<H 

O 

c5 
a 
»—  i 

99 

«w 
O 

d 
q 

M 

oS 

<H 

O 

O 

o 

HH 

Albany  . 

210 

Bartlett  

1,013 

1 

1 

1 

Brookfield  

296 

'Chatham 

269 

Con  way  

3,154 

3 

2 

1 

Eaton  .... 

365 

600 

1 

1 

1 

Freedom  

594 

Hart's  Location 

38 

Jackson  

622 

1 

1 

1 

Madison. 

529 

Moultonborough  

901 

1 

1 

Ossipee  .   .   .   . 

1,479 

1 

1 

Sandwich  . 

1  077 

1 

1 

Tamworth  

1,050 

1 

1 

Tuftonborough  

663 

1 

1 

Wakefield 

1  645 

1 

1 

Wolfeborough  

2  390 

2 

1 

14 

12 

11 

APPENDIX  A. 


829 


MERRIMACK  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

d 

.2 

(B 

"3 
ft 

& 

c^ 

T-T 

*o 

d 
d 

M 

$f 

(4-4 

0 

6 
a 
h-  1 

of 

<M 

0 

c5 

a 
i—  i 

Allenstown  

1,496 

1 

1 

1 

Andover  

1  179 

1 

1 

1 

Boscawen...    . 

1  455 

1 

1 

1 

Bow.    .. 

fi17 

I 

1 

1 

Bradford  

805 

1 

1 

1 

Canterbury  

821 

1 

1 

1 

Chichester 

821 

1 

1 

I 

Concord  

19  632 

Ward  1  

1  911 

2 

1 

1 

Ward  2         .... 

753 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  3 

1  04.0 

I 

I 

I 

Ward  4 

Q  «44 

3 

2 

2 

Ward  5  

2  609 

2 

•> 

1 

Ward  6     ... 

3  390 

3 

2 

I 

Ward  7  

3  178 

3 

2 

1 

Ward  8  

1  212 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  9  

1  892 

2 

1 

1 

Danbury  

AK4. 

1 

1 

1 

Dumbarton  

551 

Epsom  

771 

1 

1 

1 

Franklin  

5  846 

Ward  1 

1  572 

1 

I 

1 

Ward  2  

2  365 

2 

1 

1 

WardS  

1  909 

2 

1 

1 

Henniker 

1  505 

1 

I 

1 

Hill 

fi03 

1 

I 

1 

Hooksett  

1  665 

1 

I 

Hopkinton  .    . 

1  652 

1 

I 

Loudon 

960 

1 

I 

Newbury 

4.94. 

New  London  '  

768 

1 

1 

North  field  . 

i  227 

1 

1 

Pembroke 

Q  1QQ 

3 

2 

Pittsfi  eld  

2  129 

2 

1 

Salisbury.  .  .         

604 

1 

1 

Sutton 

776 

1 

1 

Warner  

1  358 

1 

1 

Webster  

496 

Wilmot  .               ....             .         . 

653 

1 

1 

1 

48 

39 

35 

330     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population. 

i-T 

•H 

0 

d 
a 

HH 

c<f 

¥ 
8 

H-  1 

Inc.  of  3,000. 

Amherst  

1  231 

1 

1 

Antrim  .  . 

1  366 

I 

1 

Bedford  

1,148 

1 

1 

Bennington  .   . 

667 

1 

1 

Brookline 

606 

1 

1 

486 

Francestown  

693 

1 

1 

2,528 

2 

1 

•Greenfield  

605 

1 

1 

1 

Greenville  

1  608 

1 

1 

1 

Hancock 

642 

1 

1 

1 

Hillsborough.  

2  254 

2 

1 

1 

Hollis   .  .                       

910 

1 

1 

1 

Hudson  

1,261 

1 

1 

1 

Litchfield  

243 

686 

1 

1 

1 

Manchester  

56  987 

Wardl  

3  625 

3 

2 

2 

Ward  2  

5,501 

5 

3 

2 

Ward  3  

7  320 

6 

4 

3 

Ward  4                               

6  922 

6 

4 

3 

Ward  5  

9,094 

8 

5 

3 

Ward  6              

4  880 

4 

3 

2 

Ward  7 

1  757 

1 

1 

1 

Ward  8  

5  508 

5 

3 

2 

Ward  9               

7  986 

7 

4 

3 

Ward  10  

4,394 

4 

2 

2 

Mason     

358 

Merriniack                   . 

1  234 

1 

1 

1 

Milford  

3,739 

3 

2 

2 

Mont  "V"ernon  ... 

453 

Nashua 

23  898 

Ward  1  

2,384 

2 

1 

Ward  2                     

2  274 

2 

1 

Ward  3 

3  476 

3 

2 

Ward  4  

1  570 

1 

1 

Ward  5                                            ... 

1  651 

1 

1 

Ward  6  

1,440 

1 

1 

Ward  7  

3  477 

3 

2 

Ward  8 

3  082 

3 

2 

1 

Ward  9  

4,544 

4 

2 

2 

New  Boston.            .  .     .       .           

1  002 

1 

1 

1 

New  Ipswich                                            .   . 

911 

1 

1 

1 

Pelham  

875 

1 

1 

1 

Peterborough  ...        

2  527 

2 

1 

1 

Sharon                                                        .    . 

122 

Temple       

313 

\Veare               ...         

1,553 

1 

1 

1 

Wilton  

1,696 

1 

1 

1 

Windsor  

38 

96 

67 

56 

APPENDIX  A. 


831 


CHESHIRE  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population. 

r-T 
«4-l 
O 

§ 

1—  1 

<N" 

0 

c5 

a 
t—  i 

CO 
«W 

0 

c5 

0 

Alstead  ,  .  .  . 

799 

1 

1 

Chesterfield 

981 

1 

1 

Dublin  

620 

1 

1 

Fitz  william  

987 

1 

1 

Gilsum  '  . 

590 

Harrisville. 

791 

1 

1 

1,933 

2 

1 

Jaffrey  

1  891 

2 

1 

Keene  .   . 

9  165 

Ward  1 

2  488 

2 

1 

Ward  2  

1,896 

2 

1 

Ward  3  

1  926 

2 

1 

Ward  4  

1  384 

1 

1 

Ward5 

1  471 

1 

1 

1,524 

1 

1 

Marlow  

488 

Nelson  

295 

Richmond 

459 

Rindge.  . 

855 

1 

1 

1 

Roxbury  

100 

Stoddard 

367 

Sullivan  /  

287 

•Surry  

250 

Troy  ..         ....                      ... 

1  527 

1 

1 

1 

Walpole 

2  693 

2 

2 

I 

875 

1 

1 

1 

Winchester  

2  274 

2 

1 

1 

25 

19 

18 

832     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population. 

VM 
0 

c5 
a 
i—  i 

c<f 

«H 

O 
O 

a 

» 

"S 

o 

fl 
(—  i 

594 

1  473 

1 

1 

1 

6,498 

5 

3 

2 

962 

1 

1 

1 

372 

345 

GTctntlitini                            

374 

339 

liGinpstcr              •         

391 

3,126 

3 

2 

1 

Plainfield      

1,114 

1 

1 

1 

Snrin  Afield. 

439 

946 

1 

1 

1 

TTnifv 

572 

^Vn  <;1i  i  n  ffton 

464 

12 

9 

7 

APPENDIX  A. 


833 


GRAFTON  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population. 

5 

o 
a 
i—  ( 

c<f 
* 

d 

a 

M 

Inc.  of  3,000. 

Alexandria  

630 

1 

1 

1 

Ashland 

1  289 

1 

1 

1 

Bath 

1  006 

1 

1 

1 

Benton  

209 

Bethlehem  

1  261 

1 

1 

1 

Bridgewater 

244 

Bristol 

1  600 

1 

1 

1 

Campton  

'999 

1 

1 

1 

Canaan  

1  444 

1 

1 

1 

Dorchester  

308 

Easton 

249 

Ellsworth  

107 

Enfield  

1  845 

2 

1 

1 

Franconia  

655 

1 

1 

1 

Graf  ton  

748 

1 

1 

1 

Groton  

346 

Hanover  .... 

1  884 

2 

1 

1 

Haverhill  . 

3  414 

3 

2 

1 

Hebron 

214 

Holderness  

662 

1 

1 

1 

Landaff  

500 

Lebanon 

4  965 

4 

3 

2 

.Lincoln 

541 

Lisbon  

2,221 

2 

1 

1 

Littleton  .... 

4  066 

3 

2 

2 

Livermore 

191 

Lyman 

426 

Lyme  

1,080 

1 

1 

1 

Monroe  .             .... 

545 

Orange 

213 

Orf  ord  

890 

1 

1 

1 

Piermont  

637 

1 

1 

1 

Plymouth  .         .... 

1  972 

2 

1 

1 

Rumney 

837 

1 

1 

1 

Thornton 

552 

Warren  

799 

1 

1 

1 

Waterville  .  .         .     .                       

50 

Wentworth 

617 

1 

1 

1 

628 

1 

1 

1 

35 

28 

26 

53 


834    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
coos  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population. 

r-T 
V 

d 
q 

t—  i 

S" 

>4-i 
o 

c5 

a 
i_i 

Inc.  of  3,000. 

Atkinson  and  Gilmanton  Academy  Grant 

Bean's  Grant  

Dean's  Purchase  

Berlin 

8  886 

Ward  1  

3  076 

3 

2 

1 

Ward  2  

3  324 

3 

2 

1 

Ward  3 

2  486 

2 

1 

1 

"Cambridge  

20 

Carroll           

710 

1 

1 

1 

Chandler's  Purchase  

Clarksville  

307 

Colebrook  ...                     .... 

1  876 

2 

1 

1 

690 

1 

1 

1 

Crawford's  Purchase  

10 

Cutt's  Grant 

Dalton  

592 

Dartmouth  College  Grant  

13 

Dix's  Grant  

Dixville  

15 

Durnmer                          

349 

Errol  

305 

Ervin's  Location  

"Gibbs1  Purchase 

'Gorham  

1,797 

1 

1 

1 

Oreen's  Grant  

13 

Hadley's  Grant 

1  080 

1 

1 

1 

Kilkenny                   ... 

47 

Lancaster  

3,190 

3 

2 

1 

Low  &  Burbank's  Grant  

^Martin's  Location 

Milan      

1,135 

1 

1 

1 

Millsfield                  

41 

^"orthumberland 

1  797 

1 

1 

1 

Odell  .            

Pinkham's  Grant            ..         .... 

7 

Pillsbury  

687 

1 

1 

1 

^Randolph  

137 

Sargent's  Purchase 

Shelburne 

283 

Stark  

733 

1 

1 

1 

1,150 

1 

1 

1 

Stratford  

968 

1 

1 

1 

Success                 

220 

Thompson  &  Meserve's  Purchase            .  . 

18 

*Wentworth'  s  Location 

58 

Whiteneld  .  .         

2,157 

2 

1 

1 

25 

19 

16 

APPENDIX  A. 


835 


COUNTIES. 

Population. 

r-T 
•g 
O 

a 

Inc.  of  2,000. 

CO*" 

"o 

6 
a 

i—  i 

Rockingham  

51,118 

44 

39 

34 

Strafford  

39  337 

32 

25 

23 

Belknap   ... 

19  526 

16 

14 

14 

Carroll 

16  895 

14 

12 

11 

Merrimack  

52,430 

48 

39 

35 

Hillsborough  

112  640 

96 

67 

56 

CliGsliirs   .  .                                 

31  321 

25 

19 

18 

Sullivan 

18  009 

12 

9 

7 

Graf  ton  

40,844 

35 

28 

26 

Coos                  

29468 

25 

19 

16 

411,588 

347 
46 

271 
46 

240 
46 

393 

317 

286 

Representatives  from  towns  46,  pro-rated. 


836     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


TABLE  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.   NEWELL   OF  KEENE. 
ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population  of  towns  and 
wards  having  one  or  more 
representatives  upon  the 
basis  of  800  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative. 

be 
a 

">  a" 

££ 

02    c$ 

11 

SJ. 

O  <^> 
& 

o  s 
'•Z  5 
,55 

Z.% 

o  <o 
ft* 

Number  of  representatives 
from  each  town  and  ward 
having  more  than  800  in- 
habitants. 

Atkinson 

442 

Auburn  

682 

Brentwood 

957 

1 

Candia  

1,057 

1 

Chester  

861 

1 

Danville 

615 

Deerfield  

1  162 

1 

Derry  .  . 

3  583 

2 

East  Kingston  

496 

Eppiner  .  . 

1  641 

1 

Exeter 

4  922 

3 

Fremont 

749 

Greenland  . 

607 

Hampstead  

823 

1 

Hampton  

1  209 

1 

Hampton  Falls 

560 

Kensington  

524 

Kingston..  . 

1  132 

1 

Londonderry 

1  408 

1 

Newcastle  

581 

Newfields  . 

647 

Newington  

390 

Newmarket  .            ...              . 

2  892 

2 

Newton 

924 

1 

North  Hampton  

812 

1 

Northwood 

1  304 

1 

Notti  ngh  am 

638 

Plaistow  

1  027 

1 

Portsmouth,  6: 
Ward  1  

2  644 

1 

Ward  2 

3  105 

2 

Ward  3 

1  391 

1 

Ward  4  

1  843 

1 

Ward  5 

1  654 

1 

Raymond  

1,100 

1 

Rye  

1  142 

1 

Salem 

2  041 

1 

Sand  own  

400 

Seabrook  

1  497 

1 

South  Hampton 

297 

Stratham  

718 

Windham.. 

641 

8,987 

30 

8,987  divided  by  800  equals  11  187-800  plus  30  equals  41  187-800. 


APPENDIX  A. 


837 


STRAFFORD   COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population  of  towns  and 
wards  having  one  or  more 
representatives  upon  the 
basis  of  800  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative. 

Population  of  towns  having 
less  than  800  population. 

Number  of  representatives 
from  each  town  and  ward 
having  more  than  800  in- 
habitants. 

Barrington  

1  208  • 

1 

Dover,  8: 
Ward  1. 

2  387 

1 

Ward  2  

3  018 

2 

Ward  3  

2  384 

1 

Ward  4.    . 

3  851 

2 

Ward  5 

1  567 

I 

Durham  

996 

1 

Farmington.  ... 

2  265 

1 

Lee  

545 

Madbury  

336 

Middleton  

300 

Milton.  .  . 

1  625 

I 

New  Durham  

625 

Rochester,  6: 
Ward  1  

1  131 

Ward  2 

1  122 

Ward  3 

1  510 

Ward  4  

1,901 

Ward  5  

964 

Ward  6 

1  738 

Rollinsford  

1,701 

Somersworth,  5: 
Ward  1 

1,285 

Ward  2 

1  167 

Ward  3  

1,104 

Ward  4  

2,183 

Ward  5 

1  284 

1 

Strafford 

1  040 

1 

1,806 

24 

1,806  divided  by  800  equals  2  206-800  plus  24  equals  26  206-800. 


838    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


CARKOLL  COUNTY. 


» 

TOWNS. 

Population  of  towns  and 
wards  having  one  or  more 
representatives  upon  the 
basis  of  800  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative. 

Population  of  towns  having 
less  than  800  population. 

Number  of  representatives 
from  each  town  and  ward 
having  more  than  800  in- 
habitants, 

Albany  ...         .              .         .... 

210 

Bartlett 

1  013 

1 

Brookfield  

296 

Chatham    .                          ..... 

269 

Conway 

3  154 

2 

Eaton  

365 

Effingham 

600 

Freedom 

594 

Hart's  Location  

38 

Jackson 

622 

Madison 

529 

Moultonborough              

1,479 

1 

Ossipee 

1  479 

1 

Sandwich  .            .           

1,077 

1 

Tarn  worth 

1  050 

1 

Tuftonborough 

663 

Wakefield                                       .... 

1,645 

1 

\Volfeborough 

2  390 

1 

4,186 

9 

4,186  divided  by  800  equals  5  186-800  plus  9  equals  14  186-800. 


APPENDIX  A. 


839 


BELKNAP  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population  of  towns  and 
wards  having  one  or  more 
representatives  upon  the 
basis  of  800  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative. 

Population  of  towns  having 
less  than  800  population. 

Number  of  representatives 
from  each  town  and  ward 
having  more  than  800  in- 
habitants. 

Alton 

1  500 

1 

Barnstead  

1  072 

1 

Belmont.  .  .             .  .         

1  294 

1 

Center  Harbor 

422 

Gilford 

661 

Gilmanton  

1,100 

1 

Laconia,  6: 
Ward  1 

417 

Ward  2 

1  465 

Ward  3  

1,073 

Ward  4        

1  465 

Ward  5 

1  485 

Ward  6 

2  137 

Meredith  

1,713 

New  Hampton 

852 

Sanbornton 

944 

1 

Tilton  

1,926 

1 

1,500 

13 

1,500  divided  by  800  equals  1  7-8  plus  12  equals  14  7-8. 


840     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

MERRIMACK  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population  of  towns  and 
wards  having  one  or  more 
representatives  upon  the 
basis  of  800  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative. 

Population  of  towns  having 
less  than  800  population. 

Number  of  representatives 
from  each  town  and  ward 
having  more  than  800  in- 
habitants. 

Allenstown                             .  . 

1  496 

1 

Andover 

1  179 

1 

Boscawen  

1  455 

1 

Bow 

617 

Bradford  

805 

1 

Canterbury                      ... 

821 

1 

Chichester 

598 

Concord,  12: 
Ward  1       .                           

1  911 

1 

Ward  2 

753 

I 

Ward  3  

1,043 

I 

Ward  4 

3  644 

2 

Ward  5  

2,609 

1 

Ward  6        

3  390 

2 

Ward  7 

3  178 

2 

Ward  8  

1,212 

1 

Ward  9 

1  892 

1 

654 

Dumbarton    

551 

Epsom 

771 

I 

Franklin,  3: 
Ward  1            .                  

1  572 

I 

Ward  2 

2  365 

1 

Ward  3  

1,909 

Henniker  .  • 

1  507 

Hill  

603 

Hooksett  

1,655 

Hopkinton 

1  652 

Loudon  

960 

Newbury  .  .         

424 

New  London 

768 

1 

Northfield  

1,227 

1 

Pembroke                

3  183 

2 

Pittsfield 

2  129 

1 

Salisbury 

604 

Sutton                       

776 

1 

Warner 

1  358 

1 

Wilmot  

653 

Webster       

496 

5,200 

32     . 

5,200  divided  by  800  equals  6  1-2  plus  32  equals  31  1-2. 


APPENDIX  A. 


841 


HILLSBOKOUGH  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population  of  towns  and 
wards  having  one  or  more 
representatives  upon  the 
basis  of  800  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative. 

Population  of  towns  having 
less  than  SCO  population. 

Number  of  representatives 
from  each  town  and  ward 
having  more  than  800  in- 
habitants. 

Amherst 

1  231 

i 

Antri  m  

1  366 

1 

Bedford  

1  148 

1 

Bennington  

667 

Brookline  

606 

Deering  

486 

Francestown  ...           .    . 

693 

Goffstown 

2  528 

\ 

Greenfield  

605 

Greenville  

1  608 

I 

Hancock  

642 

Hillsborough 

2  254 

1 

Hollis  

910 

1 

Hudson  

1  261 

I 

Litchfield  

243 

Lyndeborough  

686 

Manchester,  31: 
Ward    1  .... 

3  625 

2 

Ward    2 

5  501 

3 

Ward    3  

7,320 

4 

Ward    4   ..                

6  922 

4 

Ward    5  

9,094 

5 

Ward    6  

4,880 

3 

Ward    7  

1,757 

1 

Ward    8 

5  508 

3 

Ward    9  

7,986 

4 

Ward  10  

4,394 

2 

Mason  

358 

Merrimack 

1  234 

1 

Milford 

3  739 

2 

Mont  "Vernon 

453 

Nashua,  13: 
Ward  1                                      .    . 

2  384 

1 

Ward  2 

2  274 

I 

Ward  3  

3,476 

2 

Ward  4  

1,570 

1 

Ward  5  .   .                     

1  651 

1 

Ward  7 

3  477 

2 

Ward  8 

3  082 

2 

Ward  9  

4,544 

2 

New  Boston  

1,002 

1 

New  Ipswich                     

911 

1 

Pelham 

875 

1 

Peterborough 

2  527 

1 

Sharon  

122 

Temple                      

313 

Weare                                  

1  553 

1 

Wilton 

1  696 

1 

Windsor 

38 

59 

12 

61 

5,912  divided  by  800  equals  7  312-800  plus  61  equals  68  312-800. 


842     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


CHESHIRE   COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population  of  towns  and 
wards  having  one  or  more 
representatives  upon  the 
basis  of  800  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative. 

Population  of  towns  having 
less  than  800  population. 

Number  of  representatives 
from  each  town  and  ward 
having  more  than  800  in- 
habitants, 

Alstead                    

799 

1 

Chesterfield 

981 

1 

Dublin 

620 

Fitzwilliam                             

987 

1 

Grilsum 

590 

Harrisville               

791 

1 

Hinsdale 

1  933 

1 

Jaffrey 

1  871 

1 

Keener 
Ward  1                            ... 

2  488 

1 

Ward  2               

1,896 

1 

Ward  3                          

1,926 

1 

Ward  4 

1  384 

1 

Ward  5            

1,471 

1 

Marlborough                       

1  524 

1 

488 

Nelson                                 

295 

Rich  mond 

459 

Rindge 

855 

1 

Roxbury                                      

100 

Stoddard 

367 

Sullivan                         

2&7 

Surrv 

250 

1  570 

1 

Troy                                     

1,527 

1 

Walpole 

2  693 

1 

Westmoreland        

875 

1 

Winchester                             

2,274 

1 

3,456 

18 

3,456  divided  by  800  equals  4  256-800  plus  18  equals  22  256-800. 


APPENDIX  A. 


843 


SULLIVAN  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population  of  towns  and 
wards  having  one  or  more 
representatives  upon  the 
basis  of  800  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative. 

Population  of  towns  having 
less  than  800  population. 

Number  of  representatives 
from  each  town  and  ward 
having  more  than  800  in- 
habitants, 

Acworth  

594 

Charlestown  

1  473 

1 

Claremont  

6  498 

3 

Cornish  

962 

I 

Croydon  

372 

G-oshen  

345 

Grantham  

374 

Lanedon  .  . 

339 

Lempster  

391 

Newport  

3  126 

2 

Plainfield  . 

1  114 

1 

Springfield  

439 

Sunapee  

946 

1 

Unity  

572 

Washington 

464 

3,890 

9 

3,890  divided  by  800  equals  4  69-80  plus  9  equals  13  69-80. 


844     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


GRAFTON  COUNTY. 


TOWNS. 

Population  of  towns  and 
wards  having  one  or  more 
representatives  upon  the 
basis  of  800  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative. 

Population  of  towns  having 
less  than  800  population. 

Number  of  representatives 
from  each  town  and  ward 
having  more  than  800  in- 
habitants. 

Alexandria  

630 

Ashland  ... 

1  289 

1 

Bath 

1  006 

1 

Benton  

209 

Bethlehem  . 

1  261 

1 

Bridge  water  

244 

Bristol  

1  600 

1 

Campton 

999 

1 

Canaan  

1,444 

1 

Dorchester  .  .  . 

308 

Easton 

249 

Ellsworth  

107 

Enfield.. 

1  845 

1 

Franconia  

655 

Graf  ton  

748 

"Groton 

346 

Hanover  .... 

1,884 

1 

Haverhill.  . 

3  414 

2 

Hebron 

214 

Holderness  ....         .   . 

662 

Landaff  . 

500 

Lebanon  .... 

4,965 

3 

Lincoln  .  .  . 

541 

Lisbon 

2  221 

1 

Littleton  

4,066 

2 

Livermore 

191 

Lyman 

426 

Lyme  .    . 

1  080 

1 

Monroe 

545 

Orange 

213 

Orford  ...... 

890 

1 

Piermont 

890 

637 

Plymouth  

1,972 

1 

Rumnev  ... 

837 

1 

Thornton 

552 

Warren  

799 

1 

Waterville 

50 

^TeHtworth 

617 

\Voodstock 

628 

9,272 

21 

9,272  divided  by  800  equals  11  552-800  plus  21  equals  32  452-800. 


APPENDIX  A. 
coos  COUNTY. 


845 


TOWNS. 

Population  of  towns  and 
wards  having  one  or  more 
representatives  upon  the 
basis  of  800  for  the  first 
and  2,000  for  each  addi- 
tional representative. 

Population  of  towns  having 
less  than  800  population. 

Number  of  representatives 
from  each  town  and  ward 
having  more  than  800  in- 
habitants. 

Berlin  : 
Ward  1.   . 

3  076 

2 

Ward  2  

3,324 

2 

Ward  3  

2,486 

1 

Cambridge  

20 

Carroll  .    ... 

710 

Clarksville  

307 

Colebrook  

1,876 

1 

Columbia  

690 

Crawford's  Purchase 

10 

Dalton  

592 

Dartmouth  College  Grant.  . 

13 

Dixville  

15 

Dummer 

349 

Errol 

305 

Gorham  

1,797 

1 

Green's  Grant           .... 

13 

Jefferson 

1  080 

1 

Kilkenny  

47 

Lancaster  

3,190 

2 

Milan 

1  135 

1 

Millsfield 

41 

Northumberland  

1,977 

1 

Pinkham's  Grant     .              .... 

>  

4 

Piftsburg 

687 

137 

Shelburne 

283 

Stark  

733 

Stewartstown 

1,150 

1 

Stratford 

968 

1 

Success 

220 

Thompson's    and    Meserve's    Pur- 

18 

W^entworth's  Location 

58 

Whitefield 

2  157 

1 

• 

5,252 

15 

5,252  divided  by  800  equals  6  452-800  plus  15  equals  21  452-800. 


846     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

SUMMAKY. 


O>  O,  c3 

>  o  a 

"08  <•••)  G 

rH    -^  rrt 

S            T3 
M«M    e3 

COUNTIES. 

^'S  |  ^ 

«^  o  S 

Z  P-rt  £ 

|SJ| 

Rockingh  am 

41  187-800 

Strafford  

26  103-400 

IBelknap 

14     7-    8 

Carroll.  .     

14    93-400 

Merrimack                         ... 

13      1-    2 

Hillsborough  

«8    39-100 

Cheshire     

22      8-  25 

Sullivan 

13    69-  80 

Graf  ton  

32  133-200 

Coos  

21  113-200 

Total  for  the  state     

293  641-800 

APPENDIX  A.  847 


TABLE  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  LEACH  OF  FRANKLIN. 

Tabulation  under  the  Leach  amendment,  based  on  a  house  of  rep- 
resentatives limited  to  three  hundred  members,  and  a  population  for 
each  representative  of  thirteen  hundred  and  seventy  under  present 
census,  with  surplus  population  given  to  small  towns,  and  the  town 
system  preserved. 

Upon  the  basis  of  thirteen  hundred  and  seventy  for  each  repre- 
sentative the  following  towns  and  wards  would  be  entitled  as  fol- 
lows, viz. : 

ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY. 

Derry 2 

Epping 1 

Exeter 3 

Londonderry 1 

Newmarket 2 

Portsmouth: 

Wardl 1 

Ward  2 2 

Ward  3 3 

Ward  4 1 

Ward  5 1 

Salem 1 

Seabrook 1 

Total 17 

STRAFFORD  COUNTY. 

Dover: 

Ward  1 1 

Ward  2 ' 2 

Ward  3 1 

Ward  4 1 

Farmington 1 

Milton 1 

Rochester: 

Ward  3 1 

Ward  4 2 

Ward  5 1 

Ward  6 1 

Rollinsford 1 

So  me  rs  worth : 

Ward  4 1 

Total..  .  14 


848    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
BELKNAP  COUNTY. 

Alton 1 

Laconia: 

Ward  2 1 

Ward  4 1 

Ward  5 1 

Ward  6 1 

Meredith 1 

Tilton 1 

Total 7 

CARROLL  COUNTY. 

Conway 2 

Ossipee 1 

Wakefield 1 

Wolf  eborough 1 

Total. . . 


MERRIMACK  COUNTY. 

Allenstown 1 

Boscawen 1 

Concord : 

Ward  1 1 

Ward  4 2 

Ward  5 1 

Ward  6 2 

Ward  7 2 

Ward  9 1 

Franklin: 

Ward  1 1 

Ward  2 1 

Ward  3 1 

Henniker , 1 

Hooksett 1 

Hopkinton 1 

Pembroke 2 

Pittsfi  eld 1 

Total 21 

HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY. 

Goff  stown 1 

Greenville 1 

Hillsborough 1 


APPENDIX  A.  849 

Manchester : 

Ward    1 2 

Ward    2 4 

Ward    3 5 

Ward    4 .  5 

Ward    5 6 

Ward    6 3 

Ward    7 1 

Ward    8 4 

Ward    9 5 

Ward  10 3 

Milford 2 

Nashua: 

Ward  1...    1 

Ward  2 1 

Ward  3 2 

Ward  4 1 

Ward  5 1 

Ward  6 1 

Ward  7 2 

Ward  8 2 

Ward  9 3 

Peterborough 1 

Weare 1 

Wilton..  1 


Total. 


CHESHIRE  COUNTY. 

Hinsdale 1 

Jaffrey 1 

Keener 

Ward  1 1 

Ward  2 1 

Ward  3 1 

Ward  4 1 

Ward  5 1 

S  wanzey 1 

Troy 1 

Walpole 1 

Winchester 1 

Total  11 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY. 

Charlestown 1 

Claremont 4 

Newport 2 

Total ~t 

54 


850     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
GRAFTON  COUNTY. 

Bristol 1 

Canaan 1 

Enfield 1 

Hanover 1 

Haverhill 2 

Lebanon 3 

Lisbon 1 

Littleton 2 

Plymouth 1 

Total 13 

COOS  COUNTY. 
Berlin: 

Ward  1 1 

Ward  2 2 

Ward  3 1 

Colebrook 1 

Gorham 1 

Lancaster 2 

Northumberland 1 

Whitefield 1 

Total 11 

Total  number  entitled  under  this  basis,  165. 
Total  population  of  these  towns  and  wards,  282,115. 
Actual  ratio  1680  of  population  for  each  representative. 
Population  of  the  remaining  towns,  129,473. 
Number  members  not  taken  by  first  basis,  135. 

Number  remaining  towns  and  wards  with  population  over  850 63 

Number  remaining  towns  with  population  over  700 17 

Number  remaining  towns  with  population  600  or  more 30 

Allowing  one  member  to  each  town  with  population  over  600 

requires 110 

Number  of  members  not  yet  allotted 25 

Number  remaining  towns  with  population  over  500 14 

Number  remaining  towns  with  population  over  400 13 

Number  remaining  towns  with  population  over  300 , .  14 

Number  remaining  towns  with  population  over  200 10 

Number  remaining  towns  with  population  over  100 2 

Number  remaining  towns  and  grants  with  total  population  415. . .  12 

None  of  the  above  towns  with  population  of  less  than  600  can  now 
send  a  representative  each  session,  and  under  the  proposed  plan  all 
having  a  population  above  300  could  send  every  other  session  or  once 
in  four  years,  or  according  to  the  proportion  their  population  entitles 
them  to,  as  the  legislature  may  prescribe. 


APPENDIX  A. 


851 


TABLE  SUBMITTED   BY  MR.  BARTON  OF  NEWPORT. 

Table  showing  the  loss  each  town  and  county  will  suffer  by  the 
amendment  to  Part  II,  Art.  9,  of  the  Constitution  by  changing  the 
mean  increase  from  1,200  to  2,000  inhabitants: 


Deny 

Exeter 

Portsmouth 

Ward  2. 

Ward3. 
Salem 


ROCKINGHAM  COUNTY. 


1 
1 

1 
1—  2 

1—  5 


Dover 

Ward  1 . . . . 

Ward  2 

Ward  3 . . . . 

Ward  4.... 
Farmington. . . 
Rochester 

Ward  4.... 
Somersworth 

Ward  4.. 


STRAFFORD  COUNTY. 


Laconia 

Ward  6. 
Tiltou . . 


BELKNAP  COUNTY. 


1—  7 


1 
1— 


Conway. ...... 

Wolfeborough 


CARROLL  COUNTY. 


1 
1—  2 


MERRIMACK  COUNTY. 


Concord 
Ward  1  

I 

Ward  4  

1 

Ward  6  .    . 

1 

Ward  7  

1 

Ward  9  

1  — 

5 

Franklin 
Ward  2  

\ 

Ward  3  

.        i— 

2 

Pembroke 

1 

Pittsfield.. 

1—  9 

852     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


HILLSBOROUGH  COUNTY. 

Goff  stown 1 

Hillsborough 1 

Manchester 

Ward  1 1 

Ward  2 2 

Ward  3 2 

Ward  4 2 

Ward  5 3 

Ward  6 1 

Ward  8 2 

Ward  9 3 

Ward  10 2—18 

Milford 1 

Nashua 

Wardl 1 

Ward  2 1 

Ward  3 1 

Ward  7 1 

Ward  8 1 

Ward  9 2—7 

Peterborough 1—29 

CHESHIRE  COUNTY. 

Hinsdale 1 

Jaif rey 1 

Keene 

Ward  1 1 

Ward  2 1 

Ward  3 1—  3 

Winchester 1—6 

SULLIVAN  COUNTY. 

Clarempnt 2 

Newport 1—3 

GRAFTON  COUNTY. 

Enfield 1 

Hanover 1 

Haverhill 

Lebanon 1 

Lisbon 

Littleton 1 

Plymouth 1—7 


APPENDIX  A.  853 

coos  COUNTY. 

Berlin 

Ward  1 1 

Ward  2 1 

Ward  3 1— 

Colebrook 

Lancaster 

Whitefield 

Total  loss 76 

Membership  of  next  bouse 393 

76 
Size  of  bouse  reduced 317 

Of  wbicb  46  represent  class  towns. 

Should  the  pro-rated  towns  be  based  on  800  instead  of  600  the  class 
towns  will  increase  from  69  to  111,  and  of  the  large  towns  Walpole, 
Ward  5  of  Concord,  and  Ward  1  of  Portsmouth  will  each  lose  one. 

Ill  class  towns  on  800  basis 
69  class  towns  on  600  basis 

42 

3  loss  among  large  towns  and  cities  on  800  basis  in  excess  of 
on  600  basis. 

45  total  loss  among  all  towns  and  cities  on  800  basis  in  excess 

of  on  600  basis. 
271  constant  on  600  basis 
4o 

226  constant  on  800  basis 

Two  thirds  of  class  towns  are  constantly  represented;  2-3  of 

111  are  74. 

74  Number  of  class  towns  constantly  represented. 
300  Size  of  house  pro-rating  on  800  and  increasing  by  a  mean  of 

2,000  population. 


854    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 
TABLE  SUBMITTED  BY  MR.  WOODBURY  OF  WOODSTOCK. 


COUNTIES. 

Proposed. 

Present. 

Concession. 

Rockingham  

34 

48 

14 

Straff  ord 

23 

33 

10 

Belknap  

14 

16 

2 

Carroll 

17 

19 

2 

Merrimack  

39 

46 

7 

Hillsborough                 

52 

95 

43 

Cheshire 

18 

33 

15 

Sullivan  

13 

16 

3 

Graf  ton            .                        .                        

30 

40 

10 

Coos 

22 

31 

9 

Totals     .  .                                

262 

377 

115 

CITIES.  Proposed. 

Portsmouth 6 

Dover 5 

Rochester , 6 

Somersworth , 5 

Laconia 4 

Concord 10 

Franklin 3 

Manchester 17 

Nashua 10 

Keene 5 

Berlin. . .  3 


LARGE  TOWNS. 


74 

Proposed. 
,.  3 


Exeter 

Claremont 2 

Lebanon 2 

Littleton 2 

Lancaster 2 


10 


APPENDIX  A. 


855 


SUNDRY  INFORMATION   AS   TO   THE    PROVISIONS   OF  THE 

SEVERAL  STATE  CONSTITUTIONS  FOR 

THEIR  OWN  AMENDMENT. 

Compiled  by  Mr.  Baker  of  Bow. 


STATE. 

Amendments 
are  submitted 
by 

When  present 
constitution 
was  adopted. 

Number  of 
amendments 
since  ratified. 

Constitutional  requirements  of 
the  several  states  as  to 
amendments. 

New  Hampshire 
Alabama  

Convention. 

1793 
1901 

16 
None 

Amendments  may  be  submitted 
by  constitutional   convention. 
Must  be  ratified  by  two  thirds 
of  voters  voting. 
Three  fifths  of  each  house  may 

1874 

6 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 
Majority   of   both    houses   may 

California  

'< 

1879 
1876 

5 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  voters  voting  ratifies. 
Two  thirds  of  each  house  may 
submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 
Two    thirds     of    the    members 

Connecticut  — 

" 

1818 
1897 

40 

elected  to  each  house  may  sub- 
mit amendments.    Majority  of 
voters  voting  ratifies. 
Majority  of  house    may  submit 
amendments  which  when  rati- 
fied by  two  thirds  of  the  next 
legislature    and     majority    of 

When  two  thirds  of  senate  and 

Florida  
Georgia  

•• 

1885 
1877 

11 

g 

house  of  two  successive  legis- 
latures pass  amendments  they 
become  valid  without  ratifica- 
tion. 
Three  fifths  of  each  house  may 
submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 
Two  thirds  of  each  house  may 

Idaho  

1889 

4 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 
Two  thirds   of  legislature  may 

Illinois  

1870 

5 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
ratifies. 
Two  thirds  of  each  house  may 

Indiana         .  .  . 

1851 

4 

submit  call  for  convention  to 
the    people    or     may  submit 
amendments  directly.    Major- 
ity ratifies. 
Majority   of  both    houses   may 

Iowa 

1857 

11 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  electors  ratifies. 
Majority  of  both  houses  of  two 

Kansas    

1859 

successive    legislatures     may 
submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  qualified  voters  ratifies. 
Two  thirds  of  both  houses  may 

1891 

None  . 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  electors  voting  ratifies. 
Three  fifths  of  both  houses  may 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  voters  voting  ratifies. 

856     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


STATE. 

Amen  d  m  e  n  t  s 
are  submitted 
by 

When  present 
const!  t  u  t  i  o  n 
was  adopted. 

Number  of 
amendments 
since  ratified. 

Constitutional  requirements  of 
the  several  states  as  to 
amendments. 

1898 

Maine  

1819 

g 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 
Two  thirds  of  each  house  may 

Revis- 
ed 1875 
1867 

15 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 

Massachusetts- 

Convention 
to    1821; 
then   leg- 
islature.... 

Legislature 

1780 
1850 

36* 

propose  amendments.  Majority 
of  votes  cast  ratifies. 
Majority  of  senate  and  two  thirds 
of  house  of  two  successive  leg- 
islatures may  submit  amend- 
ments.  Majority  of  people  vot- 
ing ratifies. 
Two  thirds  of  each  house  may 

lOCI? 

qc 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 

Mississippi  

1890 

convention.    Amendments  may 
be  submitted  by  majoriy  of  both 
houses.    Majority   of    electors 
voting  ratifies. 
Two  thirds  of  each  house  may 

Missouri  

1875 

3 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  electors  voting  ratifies. 
Majority  of  each  house  may  sub- 

1889 

1 

mit  amendments.    Ratification 
by  majority  of  qualified  elec- 
tors. 
Two  thirds  of  each  house  mav 

Nebraska  
Nevada  

« 

1875 
1864 

2 
g 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 
Three  fifths  of  members  elected 
to     each     house    may   submit 
amendments.    Majority  of  peo- 
ple voting  ratifies. 
Majority  of  both  houses  of  two 

New  Jersey  
New  York 

M 

1875 
1894 

None., 
g 

successive    legislatures     may 
submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 
A  majority  of  two  successive  leg- 
islatures ratified  by  majority  of 
legal  voters  voting. 
Majority  of  both  houses  of  two 

North  Carolina 

successive     legislatures     may 
submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 
Three  fifths  of  each  house  may 

North  Dakota.. 
Ohio  

'• 

1889 
1851 

4 
g 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 
Majority  of    house   and    senate 
of  two  successive  legislatures 
may  submit    amendments. 
Majority  of  people  voting  rati- 
fies. 
Three  fifths  of  members  elected 

to     each  house     may    submit 
amendments.    Majority  of  peo- 
ple voting  ratifies. 

Nine  by  convention— others  by  legislature. 


APPENDIX  A. 


857 


STATE. 

Amend  m  e  n  t  s 
are  submitted 
by 

||| 

0>q=! 

»*8-g 

ja  a  ** 

Constituttonal  requirements  of 
the  several  states  as  to 
amendments. 

Oregon  
Pennsylvania... 
Rhode  Island... 

South  Carolina. 
South  Dakota  .  . 

Legislature. 

1857 
1873 
1843 

1895 

1889 
1870 

I 
None.. 
11 

None.. 
2 

A   majority   of   two    successive 
legislatures  ratified  by  major- 
ity of  people  voting. 
A    majority    of   two    successive 
legislatures  ratified  by  major- 
ity of  legal  voters  voting. 
A  majority  of  both  houses  of  two 
successive  legislatures  ratified 
by  three   fifths  of  the  voters 
voting. 
Two  thirds  of  each  house  may 
submit     amendments.       They 
must  be  ratified  by  a  majority 
of  the  people  and  of  the  next 
legislature. 
A  majority  of  both  houses  may 
submit   amendments.    Ratified 
by  majority  of  people  voting. 
Majority  of  first  legislature  may 

Texas  

1875 

4 

submit  amendments,  which  if 
approved  by  two  thirds  of  next 
legislature    are   submitted   to 
people.    Majority  of  votes  rat- 
ifies. 
Two  thirds   of  legislature   may 

Utah  

1895 

None 

submit  amendments.   Majority 
of  people  voting  ratifies. 
Two  thirds  of  both  houses  may 

Vermont  
Virginia  

Convention 
to     1870; 
then  leg- 
islature .  .  . 

1793 
1902 

28f 

submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  voters  voting  ratifies. 
Two  thirds  of  senate  and  major- 
ity of  house  and  majority  of 
both  houses  of  next  legislature 
may  submit  amendments.   Ma- 
jority of  voters  voting  ratifies. 

Washington  — 
West  Virginia.. 

Wisconsin  
Wyoming  

(t 

1889 
1872 

1848 
1889 

None.. 
3 

13 

legislatures  ratified  by  major- 
ity of  people  voting. 
Two  thirds   of  each  house  may 
submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  voters  voting  ratifies. 
Two  thirds  of  each  house  may 
submit  amendments.    Majority 
of  qualified  voters   necessary 
to  ratify. 
A   majority   of  two    successive 
legislatures  ratified  by  major- 
ity of  people  voting. 

submit    amendments.     Major- 
ity of  electors  ratifies. 

t  Twenty-six  by  convention — two  by  legislature. 

NOTE.  Nearly  all  the  states  have  a  constitutional  provision  by  which  con- 
ventions may  be  called  for  a  general  revision  of  their  constitutions.  Ordinary 
amendments  are  submitted  by  the  several  legislatures. 


APPENDIX  B. 


I.   Tabulation  of  Votes. 

II.    Proclamation  by  His   Excellency,  Governor 
Nahum  J.  Bachelder. 

III.    Constitution  as  Amended. 


QUESTIONS  SUBMITTED  TO  THE  QUALIFIED 

VOTERS  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE, 

MARCH  10,  1903. 


Questions  submitted  to  the  qualified  voters  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, March  10,  1903: 

1.  Do  you  approve  of  requiring  every  person  in  order  to  be 
a  voter  or  eligible  to  office  to  be  able  to  read  the  constitution 
in  the  English  language  and  to  write,  the  requirement  not  to 
apply  to  any  person  who  now  has  the  right  to  vote  nor  to 
any  person  who  shall  be  sixty  years  of  age  or  upwards  on 
January   1,   1904; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the 
Constitution? 

2.  Do  you  approve  of  the  requirement  that  captains  and 
subalterns  in  the  militia  of  the  state  shall  before  their  nom- 
ination and  appointment  be  examined  and  found  duly  quali- 
fied by  an  examining  board  appointed  by  the  governor; — as 
proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

3.  Do  you  approve  of  striking  out  the  words  "the  commis- 
sary-general" from  the  requirement  that  the  secretary  of  state 
and  the  state  treasurer  and  the  commissary-general,  shall 
be  chosen  by  the  legislature; — as  proposed  in  the  amend- 
ment to  the  Constitution? 

4.  Do   you  approve  of   empowering   the   legislature   to 
impose  taxes  not  only  ttpoin  polls  and  estates  but  also  upon 
other  classes  of  property,  including  franchises  and  property 
when  passing  by  will  or  inheritance; — as  proposed  in  the 
amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

.").     Do. you  approve  of  allowing  the  legislature  to  give 
police  courts  jurisdiction  to  try  and  determine,  subject  to 


862    JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

the  respondent's  right  of  appeal  and  trial  by  jury,  criminal 
cases  wherein  the  punishment  is  less  than  imprisonment  in 
the  state  prison; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Con- 
stitution? 

6.  Do  you  approve  of  amending  the  Bill  of  Eights  by 
striking  out  the  word  "evangelical"  before  the  word  "princi- 
ples" and  inserting  the  word  "Christian"  and  striking  out 
the  word'  "Protestant"  before  the  words  "teachers  of  piety, 
religion  and  morality"  and  striking  out  thei  word  "towns" 
in  two  places  where  the  legislature  is  empowered  to  author- 
ize  "towns,    parishes   and   religious   societies"    to    suppport 
and  maintain  teachers  of  religion  and  morality;  and  striking 
out  the  words  "and  every  denomination  of  Christians"  and 
inserting  the  words  "all  religious  sects  and  denominations" 
where  equal  protection  of  the  law  is  assured; — as  proposed  in 
the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

7.  Do  you  approve  of  striking  out  the  word  "male"  before 
the  word   "inhabitant"   in  the  clause  which   provides  that 
every  male  inhabitant:  twenty-one  years  of  age  (with  certain 
exceptions)  shall  have  a  right  to  vote;  which  clause  is  sup- 
plemented by  the  existing  provision  that  every  such  person 
shall  be  considered  an  inhabitant  for  the  purpose  of  electing 
and  being  elected  to  office; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment 
to  the  Constitution? 

8.  Do  you  approve  of  granting  to  the  general  court  all  just 
powers  possessed  by  the  state  to  enact  laws  to  prevent  the 
operations  within  the  state  of  all  persons  and  associations, 
trusts  and  corporations  who  endeavor  to  raise  the  price  of 
any  article  of  commerce  or  to  destroy  free  and  fair  competi- 
tion in  the  trades  and  industries  through  combination,  con- 
spiracy, monopoly,  or  any  other  unfair  means; — as  proposed 
in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 

9.  Do  you  approve  of  amending  the  provision  as  to  repre- 
sentation in  the  house   of  representatives  by   making   800 
inhabitants  necessary  to  the  election  of  one  representative 


APPENDIX  B.  863 

and  2,400  inhabitants  necessary  for  two  representatives  and 
1,600  necessary  for  each  additional  representative;  with  the 
proviso  that  a  town,  ward  or  place  having  less  than  800  in- 
habitants may  send  a  representative  a  proportionate  part 
of  the  time;  or  that  such  towns,  w^ards,  and  places  when 
contiguous  may  unite  to  elect  a  representative  if  each  town 
so  decides  by  major  vote; — as  proposed  in  the  amendment 
to  the  Constitution? 

10.  Do  you  approve  of  giving  the  legislature  authority  to 
establish  more  than  one  place  of  public  meeting  within  the 
limits  of  each  town  or  ward  in  the  state  for  the  casting  of 
votes  and  the  election  of  officers  under  the  Constitution,  and 
for  that  purpose  to  divide  any  town  or  ward  into  voting  pre- 
cincts;— as  proposed  in  the  amendment  to  the  Constitution? 


864     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION 


5 


§ 


§ 


& 


,-(  CO  i-< 


o  t~  ^  oi  »c  os  o  e<i  •<**  «o  T*  to  o 
i-i  i-i  I-H  eo  r-t      >H  I-H  c<i  w  c<i      >-i 


oo  7<J  TJ<  t^  e<i 


8  :S  "2 


APPENDIX  B. 


865 


--  rf<  IN  00  •*  lO  SO  OS  00  O    llO 
•<**        TJI  rH  <N  rn  <N  C^  rr  CO    I   OJ 


t^  J>(N  (N  t~  (N  ^  O  rH  CO     ICO 

co      eo  IN  r-i  in  — <  rt  fr<  T-I      os 


t^COtOOJ^iOCO 
<  rH  t>-  C^  rH  rH  (N  CO 


a  : 


866     JOUIINAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


§ 


§ 


iHt>"OtO"^l 

oot-ooooi 


>l>-'—  'lOOOi'^'—  Cir^t^GO^^ 

-*  •*  ^  •*  •*  ^w  eo  10  cc  ic  «  i 


e*i  10  i  r* 
i-*<=>      -r 


t^^oooiooM(Ne<ioc^mooiooTt<O'-ii 

<N  00   O  M  CO  I>  ITS  0  rH  rt        »0  t-i  CO  00  CO   -H  <N  1 


<N  00  ^ 


••WWZ  :«:::: 

•j^IS-a-ali      «t?       •       •       •       • 


si 


APPENDIX  B. 


867 


§ 


O  O  -J<  lO  iM    | 


§ 


G? 


§ 


133  j  8 


OIM  —  <»T»*a>o<-' 
pjos^^-^^w^i 


'S^^S         05 


i-i  o  eo  T}<  te>  t 


:£d  : 
,£3  S  -S  :     * 

Ifelo     § 


868     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION, 


O? 

§ 


IN  rH  ^H  CO 


i  co  co  ic  c«  oo  i 


C^^C^C;lOO'—  <lCO>T-*I>l^-t>-»—  IQO^CO 
CO  rH  r-l  --  tH  CO  CO         r-t  (N  iH  -*  l»  1C  <N  00  CO 


00  CO  00  1C  TJI  1C  (N  TJI     .  O5  •*  (N  CN  CO  O  00  t~O    I   r- 
rH  1C  i-H  rH  1C  rjt  C<1  CO     •  CO  TT  rH  CO  1C  CO  CO  1C  t~        (N 


)  1C     I    CO 
105     I    •* 


W  pj  ,_,  ^H  O5  O  CD  CO     •  —  "  rH  «  Tfl  O  ^  O  CO  1C 
T-I  CO  r-l  TH  0  <N  -I  •*      -CO-*         (N  1C  •<*  (M  CO  r* 


I  ^  rH  rH  1C  C<1  1C  J 


rH(NCl 
rHCOrH 


0000^-*t-rH(MrHlCfO^lCDO3TflOl 
I—  1  (N  rH  rH  rH          ^  CO         (M  <N  rH  CO  1C  1C  < 


rH      •  CO  (M      •  rH  CNI  <M  rH  rH  ( 


il 


APPENDIX  B. 


869 


lOlOCOOO?O' 


OOOOO'-l«S'-i! 


'S<^Hl>OrJ<r-(-* 


|as3S5!  ig 

I  W~ 


- 


!    I    I  IH  <M  co  •«*  m  »  t-  oo  os    I    !    ;>-|e<'co    ; 

i  f  i'g'g'S'S'g'S'g'g'g  !  i  i'S'S'S  i 


»•«     * 

si  s  a 


I 

I! 


870     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


§ 

PQ 

CO 

§ 
I 

OP 

fc 

O 


§ 


§ 


ioocoe«3ioiOQCO5t-i«iHe^ 

COOCOi-l!-!rHeOt-.-«N,-<rH 


~*         (M  IO  i-H  rH 


C^l  O5  00  CO  CO  Ci  O  rHOOCDOr-*lOO5C^OOlOOiCOCO^OO^Oir-(OOlOr-*OSCO 
(N  CO  rt  CO         rH  C^l  10  CO  CO  IN  <*  r-l  CO         rH  OS  JO  (N  00  O  >O  CO  IO  O  CM  r-t  <N  rH  r- 


2<x>  t^  Tt<  eo  rj<  eo  eo  rn  •*  oo  «*  10  CM    •  to  to  o  rH  Tjt  T-H  eo  c«  •<*•  •* 
C^rH(N         rH  rH  CO  -*  CO  rH  IN         (N      •  r-H>  O  rJH  rH  O5  rH  IM  rH  O 


r-i^coc 
COlOrH 


«CNCO^'O«Ol^flOOJrH 

i'g'g'S'g'S'S'E'S'g'S 

:fScSo3o3G3cflc3o3c3c8 


o 


S^r^ 

i'£|« 

!  0>S  O 


APPENDIX  B. 

ss5$S£§3$g££S££?<;238*'  is 


t~-(M^Hior^oa»tooiO5inoot 

03  <M  •*  <N  r-l  CO  10  to  00  TJ<  r-l  (N  00 


CCOOSCOi-lr-KN-^t^tOCntOCOrHr-IOOK 
<NOOOOiaT*t-C<l<00«0<NiraiN         r-l  r-H  SO 


T-3  IN  06  •*  ic  to  *>• 


I 


871 


872     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


00  i  £ 


§ 


ssig 


OOOOOOiOO5 
<N  IM  <M  CO  (M  <N 


CO  •*  10  CO 


I  »O  ^  I-H  •*  ^H  S  ^5  T?<  I-H  CO  ' 


Sco  1-1  co  co  o  rf  t- co  co  1-1  OJ  ^  co  co  .  10  o  t- »o  t> -f -H*  o  o  ri  co   ico 
rH  iH  .  CN  r-1  «S1  .  CO  >-H  T»<  <N  CM  i-l  r-1  i-l         i-H         i-l  <M  CM  lO  iH  CO         G> 


Ot~CO«O5O»OO5»HT«<O'S<-T<OO 
rr  0  CO  CO        «C  t-  50  CO  10  0  t-  10  CO  i 


§  >H 


^ 

!       O 


^"rtrH" 


w  OJ3        o 

^SE'l&fU  ^ 


APPENDIX  B. 


873 


a? 


S     i" 


& 


§ 


-*iMcocor^m'*<i-it 

(Nrt         (M  CD  CO  <N  00  < 


tftiSStf  :*  5 


fllililifllftjl  I 

i-      -  ^          ^ 


. 


874     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


§ 


>  eo  cc  o  < 

niM-KN 


IrHt^-COrH^T— (i— (lOOCOT-HCS' 

E    8    SE38SSS< 


'TfiO5OO3O5C^lO«5C<IO 
i  rl         <N  tN  rH  rl         iH 


(N  O5  U5  00 


00<M«5^-^-i«>lOOTC^CD2 

*— i      i— *coi— ic^      o^      T-"^ 


».j^.       •        •  ^      •    «H      • 

:ti  :'3  j  :Ss3  Jfl^* 


^j  «  as  <»  ®  E 


APPENDIX  B. 


875 


coe^--ioocoot~ 

<O  iH  CO  i-H          O4  i-l 


00  I-H  O  O  OO  O  CT>  (M  CO  (M     100 

rH  Tt<  50  ^H  Tf  CO  CO          >0<N  rH 


wllililii  i 

sllillissl  f- 


876     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


§> 


1O  O  Gi  CO  CO  O  t>- O  LO  **<  CO  l>  IO  CO  Tjl  I?j  CO  i-H  IO  r-i  00  Tt<  rH    \    v* 
<N  10  ^  <N  IM  OS  IM  IM  rH  rH  CO  -H  10  •*  l>  C<3          rH  rH  Tj«N          I>          t~ 


-HlOWN'-'!-l<N«O'- 

00  <N  00  CO  <N  r-i  CO  ^-  ?q 


N  CO  1>--^         O         rH 


Q? 


I 


s<io»oi--ma5ictoo>j>oooooooiOr-ie^c^Tj<oeo 

t-  Th  (0  CO  r-l  t-  rH  r-.  ,-,  rl  CO  l>    CO  t>  CO  <N  CO  CO  IO  CO 


irte<oioocoTj<in<M 

r-l  rH  tO  rH  rH         rH  rH 


rH         rH         CO  rH 


Scoaie<iiociaso5rHoot~ioc<icot>i»ot~ 
OCOCOr-iCOlM        (N        00  00  OS  CD  l>  CO  (N  rH 


t-  CO  05  •*  0  C^  «5  0  CO  TH  «C  Tj<  00  CO  OS  ^  1C     •  CO  rH  CM  SO  IO 
CO^OirHrHCOrH  rHrH  »CO  rH 


i-H  OJ  OS  CO  CO  CO  T*  CO  <M  CN  O  Oi  C*  t~  O  TT  ?5  CO  TJ<  t-^  T)<        lO    I 


2    ^ 


APPENDIX  B. 


87T 


2  §S  2  §§  §?  § 

ioo>r>t><Nr-i 


I  I-l  I-H  CO  I-l 


)  Oi  ,"?!  l 
I  J>  <N  T 


1-1  tH  <M  -^  T-          rH  iH 


OOt>-lOOC^tOOOiOTf<l£J 

Cil>»«lOT-lr-IO'_>(MTJ< 

e^rn  Tf»oi>eoio£o« 

-Trn"  r-J  CO  T-T 


<^I  T-l  T-l  iH  CO  1C  rH  r^ijfrH' 


• 
-7  TH"  TjT  «s  <N"  rn  TO  i-T 


i|sl!iiii§  g 

Q«3®  ce®sjq  3^0 


PROCLAMATION. 


STATE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 

EXECUTIVE  DEPARTMENT, 

Concord,  March  26,  1903. 

Be  it  known,  that  I,  Nahum  J.  Bachelder,  governor  of 
the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  in  obedience  to  the  request  of 
the  Constitutional  Convention  of  said  state,  holden  in  De- 
cember, 1902,  do  hereby  proclaim  to  the  people  of  this  state 
that  the  Constitution  of  the  state  is  amended  as  provided  for 
in  the  first,  second,  fourth,  and  eighth  propositions  or  ques- 
tions submitted  by  said  Constitutional  Convention  to  the 
qualified  voters  of  the  state  at  meetings  held  in  the  several 
towns,  city  wards,  and  places  in  this  state  on  the  second 
Tuesday  of  March,  1903. 

All  the  alterations  and  amendments  in  said  Constitution 
covered  by  said  several  propositions  or  questions  have  been 
adopted,  and  the  Constitution  is  thus  amended  by  the 
suffrages  of  more  than  two  thirds  of  the  legal  voters  present 
at  said  meetings,  and  voting  upon  said  questions. 

I  further  proclaim  to  the  people  of  this  state  that  the 
Constitution  of  the  state  is  not  amended,  as  provided  for  in 
the  third,  fifth,  sixth,  seventh,  ninth,  and  tenth  propositions 
or  questions  submitted  by  said  Convention  to  the  qualified 
voters  of  the  state  at  meetings  held  in  the  several  towns,  city 
wards,  and  places  in  this  state  on  the  second  Tuesday  of 
March,  1903,  as  neither  of  these  last-mentioned  propositions 
or  questions,  nor  the  amendments  in  the  Constitution  cov- 
ered by  the  same,  were  adopted  by  the  suffrages  of  two  thirds 
of  the  legal  voters  present  at  said  meetings  and  voting  upon 
said  questions. 

[SEAL.]  Given  under  my  hand  and  the  seal  of  said  state, 
at  the  council  chamber,  this  twenty-sixth  day 
of  March,  A.  D.  1903,  and  of  the  Independ- 
ence of  the  United  States  of  America,  the 
one  hundred  and  twenty-seventh. 

NAHUM  J.  BACHELDER. 
By  the  Governor, 

EDWARD  N.  PEARSON,  Secretary   of   State. 


CONSTITUTION 

OF  THE 

STATE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 


PART  FIRST.— BILL  OF 

RIGHTS. 
Article 

1.  Equality   of   men;    origin   and    ! 
object  of  government. 

2.  Natural  rights. 

3.  Society;   its   organization   and    ] 
purposes. 

4.  Rights  of  conscience  unalien-   | 
able. 

5.  Religious  freedom  recognized.    ; 

6.  Public   worship   of   the    Deity 
to    be    encouraged;    right    of    , 
electing     religious      teachers;    | 
free   toleration;   existing   con- 
tracts not  affected. 

7.  State  sovereignty. 

S.    Accountability  of  magistrates    j 
and  officers  to  the  people. 

9.  No  hereditary  office  or  place. 

10.  Right   of  revolution. 

11.  Elections    and    elective    fran- 
chise. 

12.  Protection  and  taxation  recip- 
rocal;    private     property     for 
public  u?e. 

13.  Conscientiously         scrupulous 
not  compellable  to  bear  arms. 

14.  Legal    remedies    to    be    free, 
complete,   and  prompt. 

15.  Accused   entitled   to    full   and 
substantial        statement        of 
charge;  not  obliged  to  furnish 
evidence       against       himself; 
may    produce    proofs    and    be 
fully  heard,  etc. 

16.  No  person   to   be   again   tried 
after    an    acquittal;    trial    by 
jury  in   capital   cases. 

17.  Criminal  trials  in  county,  ex- 
cept in  general  insurrection. 

18.  Penalties    to    be    proportional 
to    offenses;     true    design    of 
punishment. 

19.  Searches    and    seizures    regu- 
lated. 

20.  Trial   by  jury  in   civil   cases; 
exceptions. 

21.  Only      qualified      persons      to 
serve    as    jurors,    and    to    be 
fully  compensated. 

22.  Liberty  of  the  press. 

23.  Retrospective  laws  prohibited. 

24.  Militia. 


Article 

25.  Standing  armies. 

26.  Military       subject       to      civil 
power. 

27.  Quartering  of  soldiers. 

28.  Taxes    to    be    levied    only    by 
the  people  or  legislature. 

29.  Suspension   of  laws  by  legis- 
lature only. 

30.  Freedom  of  speech. 

31.  Meetings     of     legislature,   for 
what  purpose. 

32.  Rights    of   assembly,    instruc- 
tion, and  petition. 

33.  Excessive  bail,  fines,  and  pun- 
ishments  prohibited. 

34.  Martial  law  limited. 

35.  The  judiciary;  tenure  of  office. 
3G.    Pensions. 

37.  The  legislative,  executive,  and 
judicial     departments     to     be 
kept  separate. 

38.  Social   virtues   inculcated. 

PART    SECOND.— FORM    OF 
GOVERNMENT. 

1.  Name  of  body  politic. 

2.  Legislature,    how   constituted. 

3.  General  court,   when  to  meet 
and  dissolve. 

4.  Power  of  general  court  to  es- 
tablish courts. 

5.  To   make  laws,    elect  officers, 
define       their       powers       and 
duties,       impose      fines       and 
assess  taxes. 

6.  Valuation  of  estates. 

7.  Members  of  legislature  not  to 
take  fees  or  act  as  counsel. 

8.  Legislature   to    sit   with   open 
doors. 


HOUSE    OF    REPRESENTA- 
TIVES. 

9.    Representatives   elected  bien- 
nially; ratio  of  representation. 

10.  Small  towns  may  elect  a  pro- 
portionate part  of  time  where 
they  cannot  be  classed. 

11.  Biennial  election  of  represent- 
atives in  November. 


880     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 


Article 

12.  Qualifications    of   electors. 

13.  Representatives,   how  elected,, 
and  qualifications  of. 

14.  Compensation    of    legislature. 

15.  Vacancies  in  house,  how  filled. 

16.  House  to  impeach  before  the 
senate. 

17.  Money    bills    to    originate    in 
house. 

18.  Power    of    adjournment    lim- 
ited. 

19.  Quorum,     what    constitutes. 

20.  Privileges  of  members  of  the 
legislature. 

21.  House    to    elect    speaker    and 
officers,    settle    rules    of    pro- 
ceeding,   and   punish    miscon- 
duct. 

22.  Senate     and    executive    have 
like      powers;      imprisonment 
limited. 

23.  Journal  and  laws  to  be  pub- 
lished;   yeas    and    nays,    and 
protests. 

SENATE. 

24.  Senate,  how  constituted;  ten- 
ure of  office. 

25.  Senatorial  districts,  how  con- 
stituted. 

26.  Election  of  senators. 

27.  Senators,   how  and   by   whom 
chosen;    right   of   suffrage. 

28.  Qualification    of   senators. 

29.  Inhabitant    defined. 

30.  Inhabitants     of     incorporated 
places;  their  rights,  etc. 

31.  Biennial     meetings,     how 
warned,    governed    and    con- 
ducted; return  of  votes. 

32.  Governor  and  council  to  can- 

vass returns  of  votes  for  sen- 
ators and  notify  the  persons 
elected. 

33.  Vacancies      in     senate,      how 
filled. 

34.  Senate    judges    of    their    own 
elections. 

35.  Adjournments    limited    except 
in  impeachment  cases. 

36.  Senate  to  elect  their  own  offi- 
cers;  quorum. 

37.  Senate  to  try  impeachments; 
mode  of  proceeding. 

38.  Judgment     on     impeachments 
limited. 

39.  Chief  justice  to  preside  on  im- 
peachment of  governor. 

EXECUTIVE   POWER— GOVER- 
NOR. 

40.  Title  of  governor. 

41.  Election    of   governor;    return 
of     votes;      electors;      if     no 
choice,  legislature  to  elect  one 
of    two     highest    candidates; 
qualifications  for  governor. 

42.  In  case  of  disagreement,  gov- 
ernor to  adjourn  or  prorogue 
legislature;    if   infectious    dis- 
temper or  other  causes  exist, 
may  convene  them  elsewhere. 


Article 

43.  Veto  of  governor  to  bills,  pro- 
visions as  to. 

44.  Resolves    to    be    treated    like 
bills. 

45.  Governor  and  council  to  nom- 
inate    and     appoint     officers; 
nomination  three  days  before 
appointment. 

46.  Governor     and    council    have 
negative  on  each  other. 

47.  Field   officers  to   recommend, 
and  governor  to  appoint  com- 
pany officers. 

48.  President  of  senate  to  act  as 

governor  when  office  vacant. 

49.  Governor  to  prorogue   or  ad- 
journ legislature  and  call  ex- 
tra sessions. 

50.  Power  and  duties  of  governor 
as    commander-in-chief;    lim- 
itation. 

51.  Pardoning  power. 

52.  Militia  officers,  removal  of. 

53.  Staff    and     non-commissioned 
officers,    by   whom   appointed. 

54.  Division    of    militia    into    bri- 
gades,   regiments,    and    com- 
panies. 

55.  Money    drawn    from    treasury 
only  by  warrant  of  governor 
pursuant  to   law. 

56.  Account    of    military    stores, 
etc.,  to  be  rendered  quarterly. 

57.  Compensation      of      governor 
and   council. 

58.  Salaries  of  judges. 

COUNCIL. 

59.  Councilors,   mode   of   election, 
etc. 

60.  Vacancies,    how     filled,    if   no 
choice. 

61  Occurring  afterward,  new 
election;  governor  to  convene; 
duties. 

62.  Impeachment   of  councilors. 

63.  Secretary   to    record   proceed- 
ings of  council. 

64.  Councilor     districts     provided 
for. 

65.  Elections   by   legislature   may 
be    adjourned    from    day    to 
day;  order  thereof. 

SECRETARY,  TREASURER, 

COMMISSARY-GENERAL, 

ETC. 

66.  Election    of    secretary,    treas- 
urer, and  commissary-general. 

67.  State     records,     where    kept; 
duty  of  secretary. 

68.  Deputy  secretary. 

69.  Secretary  to  give  bond. 

COUNTY    TREASURERS,    ETC. 

70.  County  treasurers  and  regis- 
ters    of     prolate,     solicitors. 


sheriffs.      and 
deeds  elected. 


registers 


APPENDIX  B. 


881 


Article 

71.    Counties  may  be  divided  into 
districts  for  registering  deeds. 


JUDICIARY 

72.  Tenure    of    office    to    be    ex- 
pressed       in        commissions; 
judges    to    hold    office    during 
good   behavior,    etc.,    remova- 
ble by  address. 

73.  Judges  to  give  opinions,  when. 

74.  Justices  of  the  peace  commis- 
sioned for  five  years. 

75.  Divorces    and    appeals    where 
tried. 

76.  Jurisdiction     of     justices     in 
civil  causes. 

77.  Judges  and  sheriffs,  when  dis- 
qualified by  age. 

78.  Judges  and  justices  not  to  act 
as  counsel. 

79.  Jurisdiction  and  terms  of  pro- 
bate court. 

80.  Judges  and  registers   of  pro- 
bate not  to  act  as  counsel. 

CLERK  OF   COURTS. 

81.  Clerks    of    courts,    by    whom 
appointed. 

ENCOURAGEMENT  OF  LITER- 
ATURE,  ETC. 

82.  Encouragement   of  literature, 
etc. 


OATHS  AND  SUBSCRIPTIONS, 
EXCLUSIONS  FROM  OFFICE, 
ETC. 

Article 

83.  Oath  of  civil  officers. 

84.  Before  whom  taken. 

85.  Form   of  commission. 
8fi.    Form  of  writs. 

87.  Form  of  indictments,  etc. 

88.  Suicides  and  deodands. 

89.  Existing  laws   to   continue  in 
force,    if    not    repugnant    to 
constitution. 

90.  Habeas  Corpus. 

91.  Enacting  style  of  statutes. 

92.  Governor     and     judges     pro- 
hibited   from     holding    other 
offices. 

93.  Incompatability      of      offices; 
only   two   offices   of   profit   to 
be  holden  at  same  time. 

94.  Incompatability      of      certain 
offices. 

95.  Bribery    and    corruption    dis- 
qualify for  office. 

96.  Value    of    money,    how    com- 
puted. 

97.  Constitution,     when    to    take 
effect. 

98.  Revision   of  constitution  pro- 
vided for. 

99.  Question    on    revision    to    be 
taken  every  seven  years. 

100.  Enrollment  of  constitution. 


PAET  FIRST. 

BILL  OF  RIGHTS. 

Article  1.  All  men  are  born  equally  free  and  independent; 
therefore  all  government  of  right  originates  from  the  people, 
is  founded  in  consent,  and  instituted  for  the  general  good. 

Art.  2.  All  men  have  certain  natural,  essential,  and  inher- 
ent rights;  among  which  are  the  enjoying  and  defending  life 
and  liberty;  acquiring,  possessing,  and  protecting  property; 
and,  in  a  word,  of  seeking  and  obtaining  happiness. 

Art.  3.  When  men  enter  into  a  state  of  society  they  sur- 
render up  some  of  their  natural  rights  to  that  society  in 
order  to  insure  the  protection  of  others;  and  without  such  an 
equivalent  the  surrender  is  void. 

Art.  4.    Among  the  natural  rights,  some*  are  in  their  very 
nature  unalienable,  because  no  equivalent  can  be  given  or 
56 


882     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

conceived  for  them.     Of  this  kind  are  the  RIGHTS  OF  CON- 
SCIENCE. 

Art.  5.  Every  individual  has  a  natural  and  unalienable 
right  to  worship  God  according  to  the  dictates  of  his  own 
conscience  and  reason;  and  no  subject  shall  be  hurt,  mo- 
lested, restrained  in  his  person,  liberty,  or  estate  for  wor- 
shiping God  in  the  manner  and  season  most  agreeable  to  the 
dictates  of  his  own  conscience,  or  for  his  religious  profession, 
sentiments^  or  persuasion  provided  he  doth  not  disturb  the 
public  peace,  or  disturb  others  in  their  religious  worship. 

Art.  6.  As  morality  and  piety,  rightly  grounded  on  evan- 
gelical principles,  will  give  the  best  and  greatest  security 
to  government,  and  will  lay  in  the  hearts  of  men  the 
strongest  obligations  to  due  subjection,  and  as  the  knowledge 
of  these  is  most  likely  to  be  propagated  through  a  society 
by  the  institution  of  the  public  worship  of  the  DEITY  and 
of  public  instruction  in  morality  and  religion,  therefore, 
to  promote  these  important  purposes,  the  people  of  this 
state  have  a  right  to  empower,  and  do  hereby  fully  empower, 
the  legislature  to  authorize,  from  time  to  time,  the  several 
towns,  parishes,  bodies  corporate,  or  religious  societies  within 
this  state  to  make  adequate  provision,  at  their  own  expense, 
for  the  support  and  maintenance  of  public  Protestant  teach- 
ers of  piety,  religion,  and  morality.  Provided,  notwithstand- 
ing, that  the  several  towns,  parishes,  bodies  corporate,  or 
religious  societies  shall  at  all  times  have  the  exclusive  right 
of  electing  their  own  public  teachers,  and  of  contracting  with, 
them  for  their  support  and  maintenance.  And  no  person 
of  any  one  particular  religious  sect  or  denomination  shall 
ever  be  compelled  to  pay  toward  the  support  of  the  teacher 
or  teachers  of  another  persuasion,  sect,  or  denomination. 
And  every  denomination  of  Christians,  demeaning  them- 
selves quietly  and  as  good  subjects  of  the  state,  shall  be 
equally  under  the  protection  of  the  law;  and  no  subordina- 
tion of  any  one  sect  or  denomination  to  another  shall  ever 
be  established  by  law.  And  nothing  herein  shall  be  under- 


APPENDIX  B.  883 

stood  to  affect  any  former  contracts  made  for  the  support  of 
the  ministry;  but  all  such  contracts  shall  remain  and  be  in 
the  same  state  as  if  this  constitution  ha,d  not  been  made. 

Art.  7.  The  people  of  this  state  have  the  sole  and  exclu- 
sive right  of  governing  themselves  as  a  free,  sovereign,  and 
independent  state,  and  do>  and  forever  hereafter  shall,  exer- 
cise and  enjoy  every  power,  jurisdiction,  and  right  pertaining 
thereto  which  is  not  or  may  not  hereafter  be  by  them 
expressly  delegated  to  the  United  States  of  America  in  con- 
gress assembled. 

• 

Art.  8.  All  power  residing  originally  in,  and  being  derived 
from,  the  people,  all  the  magistrates  and  officers  of  govern- 
ment are  their  substitutes  and  agents,  and  at  all  times 
accountable  to  them. 

Art.  9.  No  office  or  place  whatsoever  in  government  shall 
be  hereditary,  the  abilities  and  integrity  requisite  in  all  not 
being  transmissible  to  posterity  or  relations. 

Art.  10.  Government  being  instituted  for  the  common 
benefit,  protection,  and  security  of  the  whole  community,  and 
not  for  the  private  interest  or  emolument  of  any  one  mir.. 
family,  or  class  of  men,  therefore,  whenever  the  ends  of 
government  are  perverted  and  public  liberty  manifestly  en- 
dangered, and  all  other  means  of  redress  are  ineffectual,  the 
people  may,  and  of  right  ought  to,  reform  the  old  or  estab- 
lish a  new  government.  The  doctrine  of  non-resistance 
against  arbitrary  power  and  oppression  is  absurd,  slavish,  and 
destructive  of  the  good  and  happiness  of  mankind. 

Art.  11.  All  elections  ought  to  be  free;  and  every  in- 
habitant of  the  state,  having  the  proper  qualifications,  has 
equal  right  to  elect  and  be  elected  into 'office;  but  no  person 
shall  have  the  right  to  vote,  or  be  eligible  to  office  under  the 
constitution  of  this  state,  who  shall  not  be  able  to  read  the 
constitution  in  the  English  language,  and  to  write,  provided, 
however,  that  this  provision  shall  not  apply  to  any  person 


884    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

prevented  by  a  physical  disability  from  complying  with  its 
requisitions,  nor  to  any  person  whio  now  has  the  right  to- 
vote,  nor  to  any  person  who  shall  be  sixty  years  of  age  or 
upwards  on  the  first  day  of  January,  A.  D.  1904. 

Art.  12.  Every  member  of  the  community  has  a  right  to- 
be  protected  by  it  in  the  enjoyment  of  his  life,  liberty,  and 
property.  He  is,  therefore,  bound  to  contribute  his  share 
in  the  expense  of  such  protection,  and  to  yield  his  personal 
service,  when  necessary,  or  an  equivalent,  but  no  part  of  a 
man's  property  shall  be  taken  from  him  or  applied  to  public 
uses  without  his  own  consent  or  that  of  the  representative 
body  of  the  people.  Nor  are  the  inhabitants  of  this  state 
controllable  by  any  other  laws  than  those  to  which  they  or 
their  representative  body  have  given  their  consent. 

Art.  13.  No  person  who  is  conscientiously  scrupulous 
about  the  lawfulness  of  bearing  arms  shall  be  compelled 
thereto,  provided  he  will  pay  an  equivalent. 

Art.  14.  Every  subject  of  this  state  is  entitled  to  a  certain 
remedy,  by  having  recourse  to  the  laws,  for  all  injuries  he 
may  receive  in  his  person,  property,  or  character;  to  obtain 
right  and  justice  freely,  without  being  obliged  to  purchase 
it;  completely  and  without  any  denial;  promptly,  and  without 
any  delay;  conformably  to  the  laws. 

Art.  15.  No  subject  sfyall  be  held  to  answer  for  any  crime- 
or  offense  until  the  same  is  fully  and  plainly,  substantially 
and  formally,  described  to  him,  or  be  compelled  to  accuse  or 
furnish  evidence  against  himself.  And  every  subject  shall 
have  a  right  to  produce  all  proofs  that  may  be  favorable  to 
himself,  to  meet  the  witnesses  against  him  face  to  face,  and  to- 
be  fully  heard  in  his  defense  by  himself  and  counsel.  And 
no  subject  shall  be  arrested,  imprisoned,  despoiled,  or  de- 
prived of  his  property,  immunities,  or  privileges,  put  out  of 
the  protection  of  the  law,  exiled,  or  deprived  of  life,  liberty, 
or  estate,  but  by  the  judgment  of  his  peers  or  the  laws  of  the 
land. 


APPENDIX  B.  885 

Art.  16.  No  subject  shall  be  liable  to  be  tried,  after  an 
acquittal,  for  the  same  crime  or  offense;  nor  shall  the  legis- 
lature make  any  law  that  shall  subject  any  person  to  a  capital 
punishment  (excepting  for  the  government  of  the  army  and 
navy,  and  the  militia  in  actual  service)  without  trial  by  jury. 

Art.  17.  In  criminal  prosecutions,  the  trial  of  facts  in  the 
vicinity  where  they  happen  is  so  essential  to  the  security  of 
the  life,  liberty,  and  estate  of  the  citizen,  that  no  crime  or 
o! reuse  ought  to  be  tried  in  any  other  county  than  that  in 
which  it  is  committed,  except  in  cases  of  general  insurrection 
in  any  particular  county,  when  it  shall  appear  to  the  judges 
•of  the  superior  court  that  an  impartial  trial  cannot  be  had 
in  the  county  where  the  offense  may  be  committed,  and, 
upon  their  report,  the  legislature  shall  think  proper  to  direct 
the  trial  in  the  nearest  county  in  which  <m  impartial  trial 
<cari  be  obtained. 

Art.  18.  All  penalties  ought  to  be  proportioned  to  the 
nature  of  the  offense.  No  wise  legislature  will  affix  the  same 
punishment  to  the  crimes  of  theft,  forgery,  and  the  like,  which 
they  do  to  those  of  murder  and  treason.  "Where  the  same 
un distinguishing  severity  is  exerted  against  all  offenses,  the 
people  are  led  to  forget  the  real  distinction  in  the  crimes 
themselves  and  to  commit  the  most  flagrant  with  as  little 
•compunction  as  they  do  the  lightest  offenses.  For  the  same 
reason,  a  multitude  of  sanguinary  laws  is  both  impolitic  and 
unjust,  the  true  design  of  all  punishment  being  to  reform, 
not  to  exterminate,  mankind. 

Art.  19.  Every  subject  hath  a  right  to  be  secure  from  all 
unreasonable  searches  and  seizures  of  his  person,  his  hou-cs, 
liis  papers,  and  all  his  possessions.  Therefore,  all  warrant* 
to  search  suspected  places  or  arrest  a  person  for  examination 
or  trial,  in  prosecutions  for  criminal  matters,  are  contrary  to 
this  right,  if  the  cause  or  foundation  of  them  be  not  pre- 
viously supported  by  oath  or  affirmation,  and  i.f  the  order,  in 
*a  warrant  to  a  civil  officer,  to  make  search  in  suspected  places 


886    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

or  to  arrest  one  or  more  suspected  persons  or  to  seize  their 
property,  be  not  accompanied  with  a  special  designation  of 
the  persons  or  objects  of  search,  arrest,  or  seizure;  and  no 
warrant  ought  to  be  issued  but  in  cases  and  with  the  for- 
malities prescribed  by  law. 

Art.  20.  In  all  controversies  concerning  property  and  in- 
all  suits  between  two  or  more  persons,  except  in  cases  in 
which  it  has  been  heretofore  otherwise  used  and  practised, 
and  except  in  cases  in  which  the  value  in  controversy  does 
not  exceed  one  hundred  dollars  and  title  of  real  estate  is  not 
concerned,  the  parties  have  a  right  to  trial  by  jury;  and  this- 
method  of  procedure  shall  be  held  sacred,  unless,  in  cases- 
arising  on  the  high  seas  and  such  as  relate  to  mariners'  wages, 
the  legislature  shall  think  it  necessary  hereafter  to  alter  it. 

Art.  21.  In  order  to  reap  the  fullest  advantage  of  the 
inestimable  privilege  of  trial  by  jury,  great  care  ought  to  be 
taken  that  none  but  qualified  persons  should  be  appointed 
to  serve;  and  such  ought  to  be  fully  compensated  for  their 
travel,  time,  and  attendance. 

Art.  22.  The  liberty  of  the  press  is  essential  to  the  security 
of  freedom  in  a  state;  it  ought,  therefore,  to  be  inviolably 
preserved. 

Art.  23.  Retrospective  laws  are  highly  injurious,  oppres- 
sive, and  unjust.  No  such  laws,  therefore,  should  be  made,, 
either  for  the  decision  of  civil  causes  or  the  punishment  of 
offenses. 

Art.  24.  A  well-regulated  militia  is  the  proper,  natural,, 
and  sure  defense  of  a  state. 

Art.  25.  Standing  armies  are  dangerous  to  liberty,  and 
ought  not  to  be  raised  or  kept  up  without  the  consent  cf  tlie- 
legislature. 

Art.  26.  In  all  cases  and  at  all  times,  the  military  ought 
to  be. under  strict  subordination  to,  and  governed  by,  the 
civil  power. 


APPENDIX  B.  88T 

Art.  27.  No  soldier,  in  time  of  peace,  shall  be  quartered 
in  any  house  without  the  consent  of  the  owner;  and,  in  time 
of  war,  such  quarters  ought  not  to  be  made  but  by  the  -jivil 
magistrate,  in  a,  manner  ordained  by  the  legislature. 

Art.  28.  No  subsidy,  charge,  tax,  impost,  or  duty  shall 
be  established,  fixed,  laid,  or  levied,  under  any  pretext  what- 
soever, without  the  consent  of  the  people,  or  their  representa- 
tives in  the  legislature,  or  authority  derived  from  that  body. 

Art.  29.  The  power  of  suspending  the  laws  or  the  execu- 
tion of  them  ought  never  to  be  exercised  but  by  the  legis- 
lature, or  by  authority  derived  therefrom,  to  be  exercised  in 
such  particular  cases 'only  as  the  legislature  shall  expressly 
provide  for. 

Art.  30.  The  freedom  of  deliberation,  speech,  and  debate 
in  either  house  of  the  legislature  is  so  essential  to  the  rights 
of  the  people,  that  it  cannot  be  the  foundation  of  any  action, 
complaint,  or  prosecution  in  any  other  court  or  place  v, hat- 
soever. 

Art.  31.  The  legislature  shall  assemble  for  the  redress  of 
public  grievances  and  for  making  such  laws  as  the  public 
good  may  require. 

Art.  32.  The  people  have  a  right,  in  an  orderly  and 
peaceable  manner,  to  assemble  and  consult  upon  the  com- 
mon good,  give  instructions  to  their  representatives,  and  to 
request  of  the  legislative  body,  by  way  of  petition  or  remoTi- 
strance,  redress  of  the  wrongs  done  them,  and  of  the  griev- 
ances they  suffer. 

Art.  33.  No  magistrate  or  court  of  law  shall  demand 
excessive  bail  or  sureties,  impose  excessive  fines,  or  inflict 
cruel  or  unusual  punishments. 

Art.  34.  No  person  can,  in  any  case,  be  subject <id  to  law 
martial  or  to  any  pains  or  penalties  by  virtue  of  that  law, 
except  those  employed  in  the  army  or  navy,  and  except  the 
militia  in  actual  service,  but  by  authority  of  the  legislature. 


888    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Art.  35.  It  is  essential  to  the  preservation  of  the  rights 
of  every  individual,  his  life,  liberi^,  property,  and  character, 
that  there  be  an  impartial  interpretation  of  the  laws  and  ad- 
ministration of  justice.  It  is  the  right  of  every  citizen  to  be 
tried  by  judges  as  impartial  as  the  lot  otf  humanity  will 
admit.  It  is,  therefore,  not  only  the  best  policy,  but  for  the 
security  of  the  rights  of  the  people,  that  the  judges  of  the 
supreme  judicial  court  should  hold  their  offices  so  long  as 
they  behave  well,  subject,  however,  to  such  limitations  on 
account  of  age  as  may  be  provided  by  the  Constitution  of  the 
state;  and  that  they  should  have  honorable  salaries,  ascer- 
tained and  established  by  standing  law. 

Art.  36.  Economy  being  a  most  essential  virtue  in  all 
states,  especially  in  a  young  one,  no  pension  should  be 
granted  but  in  consideration  of  actual  services;  and  such 
pensions  ought  to  be  granted  with  great  caution  by  the 
legislature,  and  never  for  more  than  one  year  at  a,  time. 

Art.  37.  In  the  government  of  this  stale,  the  three  essen- 
tial powers  thereof — to  wit,  the  legislative,  executive,  and 
judicial — ought  to  be  kept  as  separate  from,  and  independent 
of,  each  other  as  the  nature  of  a  free  government  will  admit 
or  as  is  consistent  with  that  chain  of  connection  that  binds 
the  whole  fabric  of  the  constitution  in  one  indissoluble  bond 
of  union  and  amity. 

Art.  38.  A  frequent  recurrence  to  the  fundamental  prin- 
ciples of  the  constitution  and  a  constant  adherence  to  justice, 
moderation,  temperance,  industry,  frugality  and  all  the  social 
virtues,  are  indispensably  necessary  to  preserve  the  blessings 
of  liberty  and  good  government.  The  people  ought,  there- 
fore, to  have  a  particular  regard  to  all  those  principles  in 
the  choice  of  their  officers  and  representatives;  and  they  have 
a  right  to  require  of  their  lawgivers  and  magistrates  an  exact 
and  constant  observance  of  them  in  the  formation  and  execu- 
tion of  the  laws  necessary  for  the  good  administration  of 
government. 


APPENDIX  B.  889 

PART  SECOND. 

FORM  OF  GOVERNMENT. 

Article  1.  The  people  inhabiting  the  territory  formerly 
c-alled  The  Province  of  New  Hampshire  do  hereby  solemnly 
and  mutually  agree  with  each  other  to  form  themselves  into 
a  free,  sovereign,  and  independent  body  politic,  or  state,  by 
the  name  of  THE  STATE  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 

GENERAL  COURT. 

Art.  2.  The  supreme  legislative  power  within  this  state 
shall  be  vested  in  the  senate  and  house  of  representatives, 
each  of  which  shall  have  a  negative  on  the  other. 

Art.  3.  The  senate  and  house  shall  assemble  biennially, 
on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  and  at  such  other  times 
as  they  may  judge  necessary,  and  shall  dissolve  and  be  dis- 
solved seven  days  next  preceding  the  said  first  Wednesday 
of  January  biennially,  and  shall  be  styled  THE  GENERAL 
COURT  OF  NEW  HAMPSHIRE. 

Art.  4.  The  general  court  shall  forever  have  full  po/wer 
and  authority  to  erect  and  constitute  judicatories  and  courts 
of  record  or  other  courts,  to  be  holden  in  the  name  of  the 
state,  for  the  hearing,  trying,  and  determining  all  manner 
•of  crimes,  offenses,  pleas,  processes,  plaints,  actions,  causes, 
matters  and  things  whatsoever,  arising  or  happening  within 
Ihis  state,  or  between  or  concerning  persons  inhabiting,  or 
residing,  or  brought  within  the  same,  whether  the  same  be 
criminal  or  civil,  or  whether  the  crimes  be  capital  or  not 
capital,  and  whether  the  said  pleas  be  real,  personal,  or  mixed, 
.and  for  the  awarding  and  issuing  execution  thereon,  to  which 
courts  and  judicatories  are  hereby  given  and  granted  full 
power  amd  authority,  from  time  to  time,  to  administer  oaths 
or  affirmations  for  the  better  discovery  of  truth  in  any  mat- 
ler  in  controversy  or  depending  before  them. 


890    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Art.  5.  And,  further,  full  power  and  authority  are  hereby 
given  and  granted  to  the  said  general  court,  from  time  to 
tame,  to  make,  ordain,  and  establish  all  manner  of  wholesome 
and  reasonable  orders,  laws,  statutes,  ordinances,  directions, 
and  instructions,  either  with  penalties  or  without,  so  as  the 
same  be  not  repugnant  or  contrary  to  this  constitution, 
as  they  may  judge  for  the  benefit  and  welfare  of  this  state 
and  for  the  governing  and  ordering  thereof  and  of  the  sub- 
jects of  the  same,  for  the  necessary  support  and  defense  of 
the  government  thereof;  and  to  name  and  settle  biennially,  or 
provide  by  fixed  laws  for  the  naming  and  settling  of,  all  civil 
officers  within  this  state,  such  officers  excepted  the  election 
and  appointment  of  whom  are  hereafter  in  this  form  of 
government  otherwise  provided  for;  and  to  set  forth  tfce 
several  duties,  powers,  and  limits  of  the  several  civil  and 
military  officers  of  this  state,  and  the  forms  of  such  oaths  or 
affirmations  as  shall  be  respectively  administered  unto  them 
for  the  execution  of  their  several  offices  and  places,  so  as  the 
same  be  not  repugnant  or  contrary  to  this  Constitution;  and 
also  to  impose  fines,  mulcts,  imprisonments,  and  other  pun- 
ishments; and  to  impose  and  levy  proportional  and  reason- 
able assessments,  rates,  and  taxes  upon  all  the  inhabitants 
of,  and  residents  within,  the  said  state,  and  upon  all  estates 
within  the  same,  to  be  issued  and  disposed  of  by  warrant, 
under  the  hand  of  the  governor  of  this  state  for  the  time 
being,  with  the  aidvice  and  consent  of  the  council,  for  the 
public  service,  in  the  necessary  defense  and  support  of  the 
government  of  this  state  and  the  protection  and  preservation 
of  the  subjects  thereof,  according  to  such  acts  as  are  or  shall 
be  in  force  within  the  same.  Provided,  that  the  general 
court  shall  not  authorize  any  town  to  loan  or  give  its  money 
or  credit,  directly  or  indirectly,  for  the  benefit  of  any  corpora- 
tion having  for  its  object  a  dividend  of  profits,  or  in  any  way 
aid  the  same  by  taking  its  stock  or  bonds. 

Art.  6.  The  public  charges  of  government  or  any  part 
thereof  may  be  raised  by  taxation  upon  polls,  estates,  and 


APPENDIX  B.  891 

other  classes  of  property,  including  franchises  and  property 
when  passing  by  will  or  inheritance;  and  there  shall  be  a 
valuation  of  the  estates  within  the  state  taken  anew  once  in 
every  five  years,  at  least,  and  as  much  oftener  as  the  general 
court  shall  order. 

Art.  7.  No  member  of  the  general  court  shall  take  fees, 
be  of  counsel,  or  act  as  advocate  in  any  cause  before  either 
branch  of  the  legislature;  and  upon  due  proof  thereof,  such 
member  shall  forfeit  his  seat  in  the  legislature. 

Art.  8.  The  dooirs  of  the  galleries  of  each  house  of  the 
legislature  shall  be  kept  open  to  all  persons  who  behave  de- 
cently, except  when  the  welfare  of  the  state,  in  the  opinion  of 
either  branch,  shall  require  secrecy. 

HOUSE  OF  REPRESENTATIVES. 

Art.  9.  There  shall  be,  in  the  legislature  of  the  state,  a 
representation  of  the  people,  biennially  elected,  and  founded 
upon  the  principles  of  equality;  and,  in  order  that  such  repre- 
sentation may  be  as  equal  as  circumstances  will  admit,  every 
town,  or  place  entitled  ten  town  privileges,  and  wards  of  cities 
having  six  hundred  inhabitants  by  the  last  general  census 
of  the  state,  taken  by  authority  of  the  United  States  or  of 
this  stata,  may  elect  one  representative;  if  eighteen  hundred 
such  inhabitants,  may  elect  two  representatives;  and  so  pro- 
ceeding in  that  proportion,  making  twelve  hundred  such 
inhabitants  the  mean  increasing  number  for  any  additional 
representative.  Provided,  that  no  town  shall  be  divided  or 
the  boundaries  of  the  wards  of  any  city  so  altered  as  to 
increase  the  number  of  representatives  to  which  such  town 
or  city  may  be  entitled  by  the  next  preceding  census;  and 
provided  further,  that  to  those  towns  and  cities  which  since- 
the  last  census  have  been  divided  or  had  their  boundaries 
or  ward  lines  changed,  the  general  court,  in  session  next 
before  these  amendments  shall  take  effect,  shall  equitably 
apportion  representation  in  such  manner  that  the  number 
shall  not  be  greater  than  it  would  have  been  had  no  such 
division  or  alteration  been  made. 


392    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Art.  10.  Whenever  any  town,  place,  or  city  ward  shall 
have  less  than  six  hundred  such  inhabitants,  the  general  court 
shall  authorize  such  town,  place,  or  ward  to  elect  and  send 
to  the  general  court  a  representative  such  proportionate  part  < 
•of  the  time  as  the  number  of  its  inhabitants  shall  bear  to  six 
hundred;  but  the  general  court  shall  not  authorize  any  such 
town,  place,  or  ward  to  elect  and  send  such  representative, 
•except  as  herein  provided. 

Arti  11.  The  members  of  the  house  of  representatives  shall 
be  chosen  biennially,  in  the  month  of  November,  and  shall 
be  the  second  branch  of  the  legislature. 

Art.  12.  All  persons  qualified  to  vote  in  the  election  of 
senators  shall  be  entitled  to  vote,  within  the  district  where 
they  dwell,  in  the  choice  of  representatives. 

Art.  13.  Every  member  of  the  house  of  representatives 
shall  be  chosen  by  ballot,  and,  for  two  years,  at  least,  next 
preceding  his  election,  shall  have  been  an  inhabitant  of  this 
state;  shall  be,  at  the  time  of  his  election,  an  inhabitant  of 
the  town,  parish,  or  place  he  may  be  chosen  to  represent;  and 
shall  cease  to  represent  such  town,  parish,  or  place  imme- 
diately on  his  ceasing  to  be  qualified  as  aforesaid. 

Art.  14.  The  presiding  officers  of  both  houses  of  the 
legislature  shall  severally  receive  out  of  the  state  treasury 
as  compensatiooa  in  full  for  their  services,  for  the  term 
elected,  the  sum  of  two  hundred  and  fifty  dollars,  and  all 
other  members  thereof  seasonably  attending  and  not  depart- 
ing without  license,  the  sum  of  two  hundred  dollars,  exclu- 
sive of  mileage;  provided,  however,  that  when  a  special  session 
shall  be  called  by  the  governor,  such  officers  and  members 
shall  receive  for  attendance  an  additional  compensation  of 
three  dollars  per  day  for  a  period  not  exceeding  fifteen  days, 
and  the  usual  mileage. 

Art.  15.  All  intermediate  vacancies  in  the  house  of  repre- 
sentatives may  be  filled  up  from  time  to  time  in  the  same 
manner  as  biennial  elections  are  made. 


APPENDIX  B.  89£ 

Art.  16.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  be  the  grand 
inquest  of  the  state,  and  all  impeachments  made  by  them 
shall  be  heard  and  tried  by  the  senate. 

Art.  17.  All  money  bills  shall  originate  in  the  house  of 
representatives,  but  the  senate  may  propose  or  concur  with 
amendments,  as  on  other  bills. 

Art.  18.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  have  power 
to  adjourn  themselves,  but  no  longer  than  two  days  at  a 
time. 

Art.  19.  A  majority  of  the  members  of  the  house  of 
representatives  shall  be  a  quorum  for  doing  business,  but, 
when  less  than  two  thirds  of  the  representatives  elected  shall 
be  present,  the  assent  of  two  thirds  of  those  members  shall  be 
necessary  to  render  their  acts  and  proceedings  valid. 

Art.  20.  No  member  of  the  house  of  representatives  or 
senate  shall  be  arrested  or  held  to  bail  on  mesne  process 
during  his  going  to,  returning  from,  or  attendance  upon,  the- 
court. 

Art.  21.  The  house  of  representatives  shall  choose  their 
own  speaker,  appoint  their  own  officers,  and  settle  the  rules- 
of  proceedings  in  their  own  house,  and  shall  be  judge  of  the 
returns,  elections,  and  qualifications  oif  its  members,  ap- 
pointed out  in  this  Constitution.  They  shall  have  authority 
to  punish  by  imprisonment  every  person  who  shall  be  guilty 
of  disrespect  to  the  house,  in  its  presence,  by  any  disorderly 
and  contemptuous  behavior,  or  by  threatening  or  ill-treating 
any  of  its  members,  or  by  obstructing  its  deliberations;  every 
person  guilty  of  a  breach  of  its  privileges  in  making  arrests 
for  debt,  or  by  assaulting  any  member  during  his  attendance 
at  any  session;  in  assaulting  or  disturbing  any  one  of  its 
officers  in  the  execution  of  any  order  or  procedure  of  the 
house;  in  assaulting  any  witness  or  other  person  ordered 
to  attend  by,  and  during  his  attendance  of,  the  house,  or  in 
rescuing  any  person  arrested  by  order  of  the  house,  knowing 
them  to  be  such. 


894     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Art.  22.  The  senate,  governor,,  and  council  shall  have  the 
same  powers  in  like  cases,  provided,  that  no  imprisonment 
by  either  for  any  offense  exceed  ten  days. 

Art.  23.  The  journals  of  the  proceedings  and  all  public 
acts  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature  shall  be  printed  and 
published  immediately  after  every  adjournment  or  proroga- 
tion, and,  upon  motion  made  by  any  one  member,  the  yeas 
and  nays  upon  any  question  shall  be  entered  on  the  journal, 
and  any  member  of  the  senate  or  house  of  representatives 
shall  have  a  right,  on  motion  made  at  the  same  time  for  that 
purpose,  to  have  his  protest  or  dissent,  with  the  reasons, 
against  any  vote,  resolve,  or  bill  passed,  entered  on  the 
journal. 

SENATE. 

Art.  24.  The  senate  shall  consist  of  twenty-four  members, 
who  shall  hold  their  office  for  two  years  from  the  first 
Wednesday  of  January  next  ensuing  their  election. 

Art.  25.  And,  that  the  state  may  be  equally  represented 
in  the  senate,  the  legislature  shall,  from  time  to  time,  divide 
the  state  into  twenty-four  districts,  as  nearly  equal  as  may 
be  without  dividing  towns  and  unincorporated  places;  and, 
in  making  this  division,  they  shall  govern  themselves  by  the 
proportion  of  direct  taxes  paid  by  the  said  districts,  and 
timely  make  known  to  the  inhabitants  of  the  state  the  limits 
of  each  district. 

Art.  26.  The  freeholders  and  other  inhabitants  of  each 
district,  qualified  as  in  this  constitution  is  provided,  shall, 
biennially,  give  in  their  votes  for  a  senator  at  some  meeting 
holden  in  the  month  of  November. 

Art.  27.  The  senate  shall  be  the  first  branch  of  the  legis- 
lature, and  the  senators  shall  be  chosen  in  the  following 
manner,  viz.:  every  male  inhabitant  of  each  town,  and  parish 
with  town  privileges,  and  places  unincorporated,  in  this  state, 
of  twenty-one  years  of  age  and  upward,  excepting  paupers 
and  persons  excused  from  paying  taxes  at  their  own  request, 


APPENDIX  B.  895 

shall  have  a  right,  at  the  biennial  or  other  meetings  of  the 
inhabitants  of  said  towns  and  parishes,  to  be  duly  warned 
and  holden  biennially,  forever,  in  the  month  of  November, 
to  vote,  in  the  town  or  parish  wherein  he  dwells,  for  the 
senator  in  the  district  whereof  he  is  a  member. 

Art.  28.  Provided,  nevertheless,  that  no  person  shall  be 
capable  of  being  elected  a  senator  who  is  not  of  the  age  of 
thirty  years,  and  who  shall  not  have  been  an  inhabitant  of 
this  state  for  seven  years  immediately  preceding  his  election; 
and,  at  the  time  thereof,  he  shall  be  an  inhabitant  of  the 
district  for  which  he  shall  be  chosen. 

Art,  29.  And  every  person  qualified  as  the  constitution 
provides  shall  be  considered  an  inhabitant,  for  the  purpose 
of  electing  and  being  elected  into  any  office  or  place  within 
this  state,  in  the  town,  parish,  and  plantation  where  he 
dwelleth  and  hath  his  home. 

Art.  30.  And  the  inhabitants  of  plantations  and  places 
unincorporated,  qualified  as  this  constitution  provides,  who 
are  or  shall  be  required  to  assess  taxes  upon  themselves 
towards  the  support  of  government,  or  shall  be  taxed  there- 
for, shall  have  the  same  privilege  of  voting  for  senators,  in 
the  plantations,  and  places  wherein  they  reside  as  the  inhab- 
itants of  the  respective  towns  and  parishes  aforesaid  have. 
And  the  meetings  of  such  plantations  and  places,  for  that 
purpose,  shall  be  holden  biennially  in  the  month  of  Novem- 
ber, at  such  places  respectively  therein  as  the  assessors 
thereof  shall  direct;  which  assessors  shall  have  like  authority 
for  notifying  the  electors,  collecting  and  returning  the  votes, 
as  the  selectmen,  and  town,  clerks  have  in  their  several  towns 
by  this  Constitution. 

Art.  31.  The  meetings  for  the  choice  of  governor,  council, 
and  senators,  shall  be  warned  by  warrant  from  the  selectmen, 
and  governed  by  a  moderator,  who  shall,  in  the  presence  of 
the  selectmen  (whose  duty  it  shall  be  to  attend),  in  open  meet- 
ing, receive  the  votes  of  all  the  inhabitants  of  such  towns 


896    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

and  parishes  present  and  qualified  to  vote  for  senators;  and 
shall,  in  said  meetings,  in  presence  of  the  said  selectmen  and 
of  the  town  clerk  in  said  meetings^  sort  and  count  the  said 
votes,  and  make  a  public  declaration  thereof,  with  the  name 
of  every  person  voted  for  and  the  number  of  votes  for  each 
person;  and  the  town  clerk  shall  make  a  fair  record  of  the 
same,  at  large,  in  the  town  book,  and  shall  make  out  a  fair 
attested  copy  thereof,  to  be;  by  him  sealed  up  and  directed 
to  the  secretary  of  the  state,  with  a  superscription  expressing 
the  purport  thereof;  and  the  said  town  clerk  shall  cause  such 
attested  copy  to  be  delivered  to  the  sheriff  of  the  county  in 
which  said  town  or  parish  shall  lie  thirty  days,  at  least, 
before  the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  or  to  the  secretary  of 
the  state  at  least  twenty  days  before  the  said  first  Wednesday 
of  January;  and  the  sheriff  of  each  county  or  his  deputy  shall 
deliver  all  such  certificates  by  him  received  into  the  secre- 
tary's office  at  least  twenty  days  before  the  first  Wednesday  of 
January. 

Art.  32.  And,  that  there  may  be  a  due  meeting  of  senators 
on  the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  biennially,  the  governor 
and  a  majority  of  the  council  for  the  time  being  shall,  as- 
soon  as  may  be,  examine  the  returned  copies  of  such  records, 
and,  fourteen  days  before  the  first  Wednesday  of  January, 
he  shall  issue  his  summons  to  such  persons  as  appear  to  be 
chosen  senators  by  a  majority  of  votes  to  attend  and  take 
their  seats  on  that  day:  provided,  nevertheless,  that,  for  the 
first  year,  the  said  returned  copies  shall  be  examined  by  the 
president  and  a  majority  of  the  council  then  in  office;  and 
the  said  president  shall,  in  like  manner,  notify  the  persons 
elected  to  attend  and  take  their  seats  accordingly. 

Art.  33.  And  in  case  there  shall  not  appear  to  be  a 
senator  elected  by  a  majority  of  votes  for  any  district,  the 
deficiency  shall  be  supplied  in  the  following  manner,  viz.: 
the  members  of  the  house  of  representatives  and  such  sen- 
ators as  shall  be  declared  elected  shall  take  the  names  of  the 
two  persons  having  the  highest  number  of  votes  in  the  dis- 


APPENDIX  B.  897 

trict,  and  out  of  them  shall  elect,  by  joint  ballot,  the  senator 
wanted  for  such  district;  and,  in  this  manner,  all  such  va- 
cancies shall  be  filled  up  in  every  district  of  the  state;  all 
vacancies  in  the  senate  arising  by  death,  removal  out  of  the 
state,  or  otherwise,  except  from  failure  to  elect,  shall  be  filled 
by  a  new  election  by  the  people  of  the  district,  upon  the 
requisition  of  the  governor,  as  soon  as  may  be  after  such 
vacancies  shall  happen. 

Art.  34.  The  senate  shall  be  final  judges  of  the  elections, 
returns,  and  qualifications  of  their  own  members,  as  pointed 
out  in  this  Constitution. 

Art.  35.  The  senate  shall  have  power  to  adjourn  them- 
selves, provided  such  adjournments  do  not  exceed  two  days 
at  a  time:  provided,  nevertheless,  that,  whenever  they  shall 
sit  on  the  trial  of  any  impeachment,  they  may  adjourn  to 
such  time  and  place  as:  they  may  think  proper,  although  the 
legislature  be  not  assembled  on  such  day  or  at  such  place. 

Art.  36.  The  senate  shall  appoint  their  president  and 
other  officers,  and  determine  their  own  rules  of  proceedings. 
And  not  less  than  thirteen  members  of  the  senate  shall  make 
a  quorum  for  doing  business;  and,  when  less  than  sixteen 
senators  shall  be  present,  the  assent  of  ten,  at  least,  shall  be 
necessary  to  render  their  acts  and  proceedings  valid. 

Art.  37.  The  senate  shall  be  a  court,  with  full  power  and 
authority  to  hear,  try,  and  determine  all  impeachments 
made  by  the  house  of  representatives  against  any  officer  or 
officers  of  the  state,  for  bribery,  corruption,  malpractice,  or 
maladministration  in  office,  with  full  power  to  issue  summons 
or  compulsory  process  for  convening  witnesses  before  them; 
but,  previous  to  th#  trial  of  any  such  impeachment,  the 
members  of  the  senate  shall  respectively  be  sworn  truly  and 
impartially  to  try  and  determine  the  charge  in  question  ac- 
cording to  evidence.  And  every  officer  impeached  for  brib- 
ery, corruption,  malpractice,  or  maladministration  in  office, 
shall  be  served  with  an  attested  copy  of  the  impeachment 
57 


898     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

and  order  of  senate  thereon,  with  such  citation  as  the 
senate  may  direct,  setting  forth  the  time  and  place  of  their 
sitting  to  try  the  impeachment;  which  service  shall  be  made 
by  the  sheriff,  or  such  other  sworn  officer  as  the  senate  may 
appoint,,  at  least  fourteen  days  previous  to  the  time  of  trial; 
and,  such  citation  being  duly  served  and  returned,,  the  senate 
may  proceed  in  the  hearing  of  the  impeachment,  giving  the 
person  impeached,  if  he  shall  appear,  full  liberty  of  producing 
witnesses  and  proofs  and  of  making  his  defense  by  himself 
and  counsel;  and  may,  also,  upon  his  refusing  or  neglecting 
to  appear,  hear  the  proofs  in  support  of  the  impeachment, 
and  render  judgment  thereon,  his  non-appearance  notwith- 
standing; and  such  judgment  shall  have  the  same  force  and 
effect  as  if  the  person  impeached  had  appeared  and  pleaded 
in  the  trial. 

Art.  38.  Their  judgment,  however,  shall  not  extend 
further  than  removal  from  office,  disqualification  to  hold 
or  enjoy  any  place  of  honor,  trust,  or  profit  under  this  state; 
but  the  party  so  convicted  shall,  nevertheless,  be  liable  to 
indictment,  trial,  judgment,  and  punishment,  according  to 
the  laws  of  the  land. 

Art.  39.  Whenever  the  governor  shall  be  impeached,  the 
chief  justice  of  the  supreme  judicial  court  shall,  during  the 
trial,  preside  in  the  senate,  but  have  no  vote  therein. 

EXECUTIVE  POWER.— GOVERNOR. 

Art.  40.  There  shall  be  a  supreme  executive  magistrate, 
who  shall  be  styled  Governor  of  the  State  of  New  Hamp- 
shire, and  whose  title  shall  be  His  Excellency. 

Art.  41.  The  governor  shall  be  chosen  biennially,  in  the 
month  of  November,  and  the  votes  for  governor  shall  be 
received,  sorted,  counted,  certified,  and  returned  in  the  same 
manner  as  the  votes  for  senators;  and  the  secretary  shall  lay 
the  same  before  the  senate  and  house  of  representatives  on 
the  first  Wednesday  of  January,  to;  be  by  them  examined; 


APPENDIX  B.  899 

and,  in  case  of  an  election  by  a  majority  of  votes  through 
the  state,  the  choice  shall  be  by  them  declared  and  published; 
and  the  qualifications  of  electors  of  the  governor  shall  be 
the  same  as  those  for  senators;  and,  if  no  person  shall  have 
a  majority  of  votes,  the  senate  and  house  of  representatives 
shall,  by  a  joint  ballot,  elect  one  of  the  two  persons  having 
the  highest  number  of  votes,  who  shall  be  declared  governor. 
And  no  person  shall  be  eligible  to  this  office  unless,  at  the 
time  of  his  election,  he  shall  have  been  an  inhabitant  of  this 
state  for  seven  years  next  preceding,  and  unless  he  shall  be 
of  the  age  of  thirty  years. 

Art.  42.  In  case  of  disagreement  between  the  two  houses 
with  regard  to  the  time  or  place  of  adjournment  or  proroga- 
tion, the  governor,  with  advice  of  council,  shall  have  the 
right  to  adjourn  or  prorogue  the  general  court,  not  exceeding 
ninety  days  at  any  one  time,  as  he  may  determine  the  public 
good  may  require;  and  he  shall  dissolve  the  same  seven  days 
before  the  said  first  Wednesday  of  January.  And,  in  case 
of  any  infectious  distemper  prevailing  in  the  place  where  the 
said  court  at  any  time  is  tc  convene,  or  any  other  cause 
whereby  dangers  may  arise  to  the  health  or  lives  of  the  mem- 
bers from  their  attendance,  the  governor  may  direct  the 
session  to  be  holden  at  some  other,  the  most  convenient,  place 
within  the  state. 

Art.  43.  Every  bill  which  shall  have  passed  both  houses 
of  the  general  court  shall,  before  it  becomes  a  law,  be  pre- 
sented to  the  governor;  if  he  approve,  he  shall  sign  it,  but 
if  not,  he  shall  return  it,  with  his  objections,  to  that  house 
in  which  it  shall  have  originated,  who  shall  enter  the  objec- 
tions at  large  on  their  journal  and  proceed  to  reconsider  it. 
If,  after  such  reconsideration,  two  thirds  of  that  house  shall 
agree  to  pass  the  bill,  it  shall  be  sent,  together  with  such 
objections,  to  the  other  house,  by  which  it  shall  likewise  be 
reconsidered;  and,  if  approved  by  two  thirds  of  that  house, 
it  shall  become  a  law.  But,  in.  all  such  cases,  the  votes  of 
both  houses  shall  be  determined  by  yeas  and  nays;  and  the 


900     JOURNAL  OP  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

names  of  the  persons  voting  for  or  against  the  bill  shall  be 
entered  on  the  journal  of  each  house  respectively.  If  any 
bill  shall  not  be  returned  by  the  governor  within  five  days 
(Sundays  excepted)  after  it  shall  have  been  presented  to  himr 
the  same  shall  be  a  law  in  like  manner  as  if  he  had  signed 
it,  unless  the  legislature,  by  their  adjournment,  prevent  its- 
return,  in  which  case  it  shall  not  be  a  law. 

Art.  44.  Every  resolve  shall  be  presented  to  the  governor, 
and  before  the  same  shall  take  effect,  shall  be  approved  by 
him,  or,  being  disapproved  by  him,  shall  be  repassed  by  the- 
senate  and  house  of  representatives,  according  to  the  rules 
and  limitations  prescribed  in  the  case  of  a  bill. 

Art.  45.  All  judicial  officers,  the  attorney-general,  coron- 
ers, and  all  officers  of  the  navy  and  general  and  field  officers 
of  the  militia.,  shall  be  nominated  and  appointed  by  the 
governor  and  council;  and  every  such  nomination  shall  be 
made  at  least  three  days  prior  to  such  appointment;  and  no 
appointment  shall  take  place  unless  a  majority  of  the  council 
agree  thereto. 

Art.  46.  The  governor  and  council  shall  have  a  negative 
on  each  other,  both  in  the  nominations  and  appointments. 
Every  nomination  and  appointment  shall  be  signed  by  the 
governor  and  council,  and  every  negative  shall  be  also  signed 
by  the  governor  or  council  who  made  the  same. 

Art.  47.  The  captains  and  subalterns  in  the  respective 
regiments  shall  be  nominated  and  recommended  by  the  field 
officers  to  the  governor,  who  is  to  issue  their  commissions 
immediately  on  'receipt  of  such  recommendation;  provided, 
that  no  person  shall  be  so  nominated  and  recommended  until 
he  shall  have  been  examined  and  found  duly  qualified  by  an 
examining  board  appointed  by  the  governor. 

Art.  48.  Whenever  the  chair  of  the  governor  shall  become 
vacant,  by  reason  of  his  death,  absence  from  the  state,  or 
otherwise,  the  president  of  the  senate  shall,  during  such 


APPENDIX  B.  901 

vacancy,  have  and  exercise  all  powers  and  authorities,  which 
by  this  Constitution,  the  governor  is  vested  with  when  per- 
sonally present;  but  when  the  president  of  the  senate  shall 
exercise  the  office  of  governor,  he  shall  not  hold  his  office 
in  the  senate.  Whenever  the  chair,  both  of  the  governor 
and  of  the  president  of  the  senate,  shall  become  vacant,  by 
reason  of  their  death,  absence  from  the  state,  or  otherwise, 
the  speaker  of  the  house  shall,  during  such  vacancies,  have 
and  exercise  all  the  powers  and  authorities  which,  by  this 
constitution,  the  governor  is  vested  with  when  personally 
present;  but  when  the  speaker  of  the  house  shall  exercise 
the  office  of  governor,  he  shall  not  hold  his  office  in  the  house. 

Art.  49.  The  governor,  with  advice  of  council,  shall  have 
full  power  and  authority,  in  recess  of  the  general  court,  to 
prorogue  the  same  from  time  to  time,  not  exceeding  ninety 
days  in  any  one  recess  of  said  court,  and,  during  the  sessions 
of  said  court  to  adjourn  or  prorogue  it  to  any  time  the  two 
houses  may  desire;  and  to  call  it  together  sooner  than  the 
time  to  which  it  may  be  adjourned  or  prorogued,  if  the 
welfare  of  the  state  should  require  the  same. 

Art.  50.  The  governor  of  this  state,  for  the  time  being, 
shall  be  commander-in-chief  of  the  army  and  navy  and  all 
th|e  military  forces  of  the  state  by  sea  and  land;  and  shall 
have  full  power,  by  himself  or  by  any  chief  commander  or 
other  officer  or  officers,  from  time  to  time,  to  train,  instruct, 
exercise  and  govern  the  militia  and  navy;  and,  for  the  special 
defense  and  safety  of  this  state,  to  assemble  in  martial  array 
and  put  in  warlike  posture  the  inhabitants  thereof,  and  to 
lead  and  conduct  them,  and  with  them  to  encounter,  repulse, 
repel,  resist,  and  pursue  by  force  of  arms,  as  well  by  sea  as 
by  land,  within  and  without  the  limits  of  this  state;  and  also 
to  kill,  slay,  destroy,  if  necessary,  and  conquer  by  all  fitting 
ways,  enterprise,  and  means,  all  and  every  such  person  and 
persons  as  shall  at  any  time  hereafter,  in  a  hostile  manner, 
attempt  or  enterprise  the  destruction,  invasion,  detriment, 
or  annoyance  of  this  state;  and  to  use  and  exercise  over  the 


902    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

army  and  navy  and  over  the  militia  in  actual  service  the 
law  martial  in  time  of  war,  invasion,  and,  also,  in  rebellion 
declared  by  the  legislature  to  exist,  as  occasion  shall  neces- 
sarily require;  and  surprise  by  all  ways  and  means  whatso- 
ever, all  and  every  such  person  or  persons,  with  their  ships, 
arms,  ammunition,  and  other  goods,  as  shall,  in  a  hostile 
manner  invade,  or  attempt  the  invading,  conquering  or  an- 
noying this  state;  and,,  in  fine,  the  governor  hereby  is 
intrusted  with  all  other  powers  incident  to  the  office  as  cap- 
tain-general and  commander-in-chief  and  admiral,  to  be  exer- 
cised agreeably  to  the  rules  and  regulations  of  the  constitu- 
tion and  the  laws  of  the  land;  provided,  that  the  governor 
shall  not,  at  any  time  hereafter,  by  virtue  of  any  power  by 
this  constitution  granted,  or  hereafter  to  be  granted  to  him 
by  the  legislature,  transport  any  of  the  inhabitants  of  this 
state  or  oblige  them  to  march  out  of  the  limits  of  the  same 
without  their  free  and  voluntary  consent  or  the  consent  of 
the  general  court,  nor  grant  commissions  for  exercising  the 
law  martial  in  any  case  without  the  advice  and  consent  of 
the  council. 

Art.  51.  The  power  of  pardoning  offenses,  except  such  a,s 
persons  may  be  convicted  of  before  the  senate,  by  impeach- 
ment of  the  house,  shall  be  in  the  governor,  by  and  with  the- 
advice  of  the  council;  but  no  charter  of  pardon,  granted  by 
the  governor,  with  advice  of  council  before  conviction,  shall 
avail  the  party  pleading  the  same,  notwithstanding  any  gen- 
eral or  particular  expressions  contained  therein,  descriptive 
of  the  offense  or  offenses  intended  to  be  pardoned. 

Art.  52.  No  officer,  duly  commissioned  to  command  in  the 
militia,  shall  be  removed  from  his  office  but  by  the  address  of 
both  houses  to  the  governor,  or  by  fair  trial  in  court-martial 
pursuant  to  thje  laws  of  the  state  for  the  time  being. 

Art.  53.  The  commanding  officers  of  the  regiments  shall 
appoint  their  adjutants  and  quartermasters;  the  brigadiers, 
their  brigade-majors;  the  major-generals,  their  aides;  t he- 
cap  tains  and  subalterns,  their  non-commissioned  officers. 


APPENDIX  B.  903 

Art.  54.  The  division  of  tlie  militia  into  brigades,  regi- 
ments, and  companies,  made  in  pursuance  of  the  militia  laws 
now  in  force,  shall  be  considered  as  the  proper  division  of  the 
militia  of  this  state,  until  the  same  shall  be  altered  by  some 
future  law. 

Art.  55.  No  money  shall  be  issued  out  of  the  treasury  of 
this  state  and  disposed  of  (except  such  sums  as  may  be  ap- 
propriated for  the  redemption  of  bills  of  credit  or  treasurer's 
notes,  or  for  the  payment  of  interest  arising  thereon)  but  by 
warrant  under  the  hand  of  the  governor  for  the  time  being, 
by  and  with  the  advice  and  consent  of  the  council,  for  the 
necessary  support  and  defense  of  this  state,  and  for  the 
necessary  protection  and  preservation  of  the  inhabitants 
thereof,  agreeably  to  the  acts  and  resolves  of  the  general 
court. 

Art,  56.  All  public  boards,  the  commissary-general,  all 
superintending  officers  of  public  magazines  and  stores  be- 
longing to  this  state,  and  all  commanding  officers  of  forts 
and  garrisons  within  the  same,  shall,  once  in  every  three 
months,  officially  and  without  requisition,  and  at  other  times 
when  required  by  the  governor,  deliver  to  him  an  account  of 
all  goods,  stores,  provisions,  ammunition,  cannon  with  their 
appendages,  and  all  small  arms  with  their  accoutrements,  and 
all  other  public  property  under  their  care  respectively,  dis- 
tinguishing the  quantity  and  kind  of  each  as  particularly  as 
may  be,  together  with  the  condition  of  such  forts  and  gar- 
risons. And  the  commanding  officer  shall  exhibit  to  the 
governor,  when  required  by  him  true  and  exact  plans  of 
such  forts,  and  of  the  land  and  sea,  or  harbor  or  harbors 
adjacent. 

Art.  57.  The  governor  and  council  shall  be  compensated 
for  their  services,  from  time  to  time,  by  such  grants  as  the 
general  court  shall  think  reasonable. 

Art.  58.  Permanent  and  honorable  salaries  shall  be  estab- 
lished by  law  for  the  justices  of  the  superior  court. 


904     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

COUNCIL. 

Art.  59.  There  shall  be  biennially  elected  by  ballot  five 
councilors,  for  advising  the  governor  in  the  executive  part  of 
government.  The  freeholders  and  other  inhabitants  in  each 
county,  qualified  to  vote  for  senators,  shall,  some  time  in  the 
month  of  November,  give  in  their  votes  for  one  councilor, 
which  votes  shall  be  received,  sorted,  counted,  certified,  and 
returned  to  the  secretary's  office,  in  the  same  manner  as  the 
votes  for  senators,  to  be  by  the  secretary  laid  before  the 
senate  and  house  of  representatives  on  the  first  Wednesday 
of  January. 

Art.  60.  And  the  person  having  a  majority  of  votes  in 
any  county  shall  be  considered  as  duly  elected  a  councilor; 
"but  if  noi  person  shall  have  a  majority  of  votes  in  any 
county,  the  senate  and  house  of  representatives  shall  take 
the  names  of  the  two  persons  who  have  the  highest  num- 
ber of  votes  in  each  county  and  not  elected,  and,  out  of 
those  two,  shall  elect,  by  joint  ballot,  the  councilor  wanted 
for  such  county;  and  the  qualifications  for  councilors  shall 
be  the  same  as  for  senator. 

Art.  61.  If  any  person  thus  chosen  a  councilor  shall 
be  elected  governor  or  member  of  either  branch  of  the 
legislature,  and  shall  accept  the  trust,  or  if  any  person 
elected  a  councilor  shall  refuse  to  accept  the  office,  or  in 
case  of  the  death,  resignation,  or  removal  of  any  councilor 
out  of  the  state,  the  governor  may  issue  a  precept  for  the 
election  of  a  new  councilor  in  that  county  where  such 
vacancy  shall  happen;  and  the  choice  shall  be  in  the  same 
manner  as  before  directed;  and  the  governor  shall  have 
full  power  and  authority  to  convene  the  council,  from 
time  to  time,  at  his  discretion;  and,  with  them  or  the 
majority  of  them,  may  and  shall,  from  time  to  time,  hold 
a  council  for  ordering  and  directing  the  affairs  of  this 
state,  according  to  the  laws  of  the  land. 


APPENDIX  B.  905 

Art.  62.  The  members  of  the  council  may  be  impeached 
by  the  house  and  tried  by  the  senate  for  bribery,  corrup- 
tion, malpractice,  or  maladministration. 

Art.  63.  The  resolutions  and  advice  of  the  council  shall 
be  recorded  by  the  secretary  in  a  register,  and  signed  by 
all  the  members  present  agreeing  thereto;  and  this  record 
may  be  called  for  at;  any  time  by  either  house  of  the  legis- 
lature; and  any  member  of  the  council  may  enter  his 
opinion  contrary  to  the  resolution  of  the  majority,  with 
the  reasons  for  such  opinion. 

Art.  64.  The  legislature  may,  if  the  public  good  shall 
liereafter  require  it,  divide  the  state  into  five  districts, 
as  nearly  equal  as  may  be,  governing  themselves  by  the 
number  of  ratable  polls  and  proportion  of  public  taxes, 
each  district  to  elect  a  councilor;  and,  in  case  of  such 
division,  the  manner  of  the  choice  shall  be  conformable 
to  the  present  mode  of  election  in  counties. 

Art.  65.  And,  whereas  the  elections  appointed  to  be 
made  by  this  Constitution  on  the  first  Wednesday  of  Jan- 
uary biennially,  by  the  two  houses  of  the  legislature,  may 
not  be  completed  on  that  day,  the  said  elections  may  be 
adjourned  from  day  to  day  until  the  same  be  completed. 
And  the  order  of  the  elections  shall  be  as  follows:  The 
vacancies  in  the  senate,  if  any,  shall  be  first  filled  up;  the 
governor  -shall  then  be  elected,  provided  there  shall  be  no 
choice  of  him  by  the  people;  and  afterwards,  thje  two 
houses  shall  proceed  to  fill  up  the  vacancy,  if  any,  in  the 
council. 

SECRETARY,  TREASURER,  COMMISSARY-GENERAL,  ETC. 

Art,.  66.  The  secretary,  treasurer,  and  commissary-gen- 
<eral  shall  be  chosen  by  joint  ballot  of  the  senators  and 
representatives,  assembled  in  one  room. 

Art.  67.  The  records  of  the  state  shall  be  kept  in  the 
office  of  the  secretary;  and  he  shall  attend  the  governor 


906     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

and  council,  the  senate  and  representatives,  in  person  or 
by  deputy,  as  they  may  require. 

Art.  68.  The  secretary  of  the  state  shall  at  all  times 
have  a  deputy  to  be  by  him  appointed,  for  whose  con- 
duct in  office  he  shall  be  responsible;  and,  in  case  of  the 
death,  removal  or  inability  of  the  secretary,  his  deputy 
shall  exercise  all  the  duties  of  the  office  of  secretary  of 
this  state  until  another  shall  be  appointed. 

Art.  69.  The  secretary,  before  he  enters  upon  the  busi- 
ness of  his  office,  shall  give  bond,  with  sufficient  sureties, 
in  a  reasonable  sum,  for  the  use  of  the  state,  for  the  punc- 
tual performance  of  his  trust. 

Art.  70.  The  county  treasurers,  registers  of  probate, 
solicitors,  sheriffs,  and  registers  of  deeds  shall  be  elected  by 
the  inhabitants  of  the  several  towns  in  the  several  counties 
in  tihe  state,  according  to  the  method  now  practised  and 
the  laws  of  the  state;  provided,  nevertheless,  the  legislature 
shall  have  authority  to  alter  the  manner  of  certifying  the 
votes  and  the  mode  of  electing  those  officers,  but  not  so 
as  to  deprive  the  people  of  tile  right  they  now  have  of 
electing  them. 

Art.  71.  And  the  legislature,  on  the  application  of  the 
major  part  of  the  inhabitants  of  any  county,  shall  have 
authority  to  divide  the  same  into  two  districtis  for  regis- 
tering deeds,  if  to  them  it  shall  appear  necessary,  each 
district  to  elect  a  register  of  deeds;  and  before  they  enter 
upon  the  business  of  their  offices,  shall  be  respectively 
sworn  faithfully  to  discharge  the  duties  thereof,  and  shall 
severally  give  bond,  with  sufficient  sureties,  in  a  reason- 
able sum,  for  the  use  of  the  county,  for  the  punctual  per- 
formance of  their  respective  trusts. 

JUDICIARY  POWER. 

Art.  72.  The  tenure  that  all  commissioned  officers  shall 
have  by  law  in  their  offices  shall  be  expressed  in  their  re- 


APPENDIX  B.  90T 

spective  commissions.  All  judicial  officers,  duly  appointed, 
commissioned,  and  sworn  shall  hold  their  offices  during 
good  behavior,  excepting  those  concerning  whom  there  is 
a  different  provision  made  in  this  constitution;  provided, 
nevertheless,  the  governor,,  with  consent  of  council,  may 
remove  them  upon  the  address  of  both  houses  of  the  legis- 
lature. 

Art.  73.  Each  branch  of  the  legislature,  as  well  as  the 
governor  and  council,  shall  have  authority  to  require  the 
opinions  of  the  justices  of  the  superior  court  upon  impor- 
tant questions  of  law  and  upon  solemn  occasions. 

Art.  74.  In  order  that  the  people  may  not  suffer  from 
the  long  continuance  in  place  of  any  justice  of  the  peace 
who  shall  fail  in  discharging  the  important  duties  of  his 
office  with  ability  and  fidelity,  all  commissions  of  justices  of 
the  peace  shall  become  void  at  the  expiration  of  five  years 
from  their  respective  dates;  and,  upon  the  expiration  of 
any  commission,  the  same  may,  if  necessary,  be  renewed, 
or  another  person  appointed,  as  shall  most  conduce  to  the 
well-being  of  the  state. 

Art.  75.  All  causes  of  marriage,  divorce,  and  alimony,, 
and  all  appeals  from  the  respective  judges  of  probate,  shall 
be  heard  and  tried  by  the  superior  court  until  the  legis- 
lature shall  by  law  make  other  provision. 

Art.  7^6.  The  general  court  are  empowered  to  give  to 
justices  of  the  peace  jurisdiction  in  civil  causes,  when  the 
damages  demanded  shall  not  exceed  one  hundred  dollars, 
and  title  of  real  estate  is  not  concerned,  but  with  right 
of  appeal  to  either  party  to  some  other  court. 

Art.  77.  ISTo  person  shall  hold  the  office  of  judge  of  any 
court,  or  judge  of  probate,  oir  sheriff  of  any  county,  after 
he  has  attained  the  age  of  seventy  years. 

Art.  78.  No  judge  of  any  court  or  justice  of  the  peace- 
shall  act  as  attorney,  or  be  of  counsel  to  any  party,  or 


908    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

originate  any  civil  suit,  in  matters  which  shall  come  or  be 
brought  before  him  as  judge  or  justice  of  the  peace. 

Art.  79.  All  matters  relating  to  the  probate  of  wills 
.and  granting  letters  of  administration  shall  be  exercised 
by  the  judges  of  probate  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature 
liave  directed  or  may  hereafter  direct;  and  the  judges  of 
probate  shall  hold  their  courts  at  such  place  or  places,  on 
such  fixed  days  as  the  oonveniency  of  the  people  may  re- 
quire, and  the  legislature  from  time  to  time  appoint. 

Art.  80.  No  judge  or  register  of  probate  shall  be  of 
counsel,  act  as  advocate,  or  receive  any  fees  as  advocate  or 
counsel,  in  any  probate  business  which  is  pending  or  may 
be  brought  into  any  court  of  probate  in  the  county  of 
which  he  is  judge  or  register. 

CLERKS  OF  COURTS. 

Art.  81.  The  judges  of  the  courts  (those  of  probate  ex- 
cepted)  shall  appoint  their  respective  clerks,  to  hold  their 
office  during  pleasure;  and  no  such  clerk  shall  act  as  an  attor- 
ney or  be  of  counsel  in  any  cause  in  the  court  of  which 
he  is  a  clerk,  nor  shall  he  draw  any  writ  originating  a  civil 
action. 

ENCOURAGEMENT  OF  LITERATURE,  ETC. 

Art.  82.  Knowledge  and  learning  generally  diffused 
through  a  community  being  essential  to  the  preservation 
of  a  free  government,  and  spreading  the  opportunities  and 
advantages  of  education  throfugh  the  various  parts  of  the 
country  being  highly  conducive  to  promote  this  end,  it 
shall  be  the  duty  of  the  legislators  and  magistrates,  in  all 
future  periods  of  this  government,  to  cherish  the  interest 
of  literature  and  the  sciences,  and  all  seminaries  and  pub- 
lic schools;  to  encourage  private  and  public  institutions, 
rewards,  and  immunities  for  the  promotion  of  agriculture, 
arts,  sciences,  commerce,  trades,  manufactures,  and  natural 
history  of  the  country;  to  countenance  and  inculcate  the 


APPENDIX  B.  909< 

principles  of  humanity  and  general  benevolence,  public 
and  private  charity,  industry  and  economy,  honesty  and 
punctuality,  sincerity,  sobriety,  and  all  social  affections  and 
generous  sentiments,  among  the  people;  provided,  neverthe- 
less, that  no  money  raised  by  taxation  shall  ever  be  granted 
or  applied  for  the  use  of  the  schools  or  institutions  of  any 
religious  sect  or  denomination.  Free  and  fair  competition 
in  the  trades  and  industries  is  an  inherent  and  essential 
right  of  the  people  and  should  be  protected  against  all 
monopolies  and  conspiracies  which  tend  to  hinder  or  de- 
stroy it.  The  size  and  functions  of  all  corporations  should 
be  so  limited  and  regulated  as  to  prohibit  fictitious  capital- 
ization, and  provision,  should  be  made  for  the  supervision 
and  government  thereof: — Therefore,  all  just  power  pos- 
sessed by  the  state  is  hereby  granted  to  the  general  court 
to  enact  laws  to  prevent  the  operations  within  the  state 
of  all  persons  and  associations,  and  all  trusts  and  corpora- 
tions, foreign  or  domestic,  and  the  officers  thereof,  who 
endeavor  to  raise  the  price  of  any  article  of  commerce  or 
to  destroy  free  and  fair  competition  in  the  trades  and  in- 
dustries through  combination,  conspiracy,  monopoly,  or 
any  other  unfair  means;  to  control  and  regulate  the  acts 
of  all  such  persons,  associations,  corporations,  trusts,  and 
officials  doing  business  within  the  state;  to  prevent  ficti- 
tious capitalization;  and  to  authorize  civil  and  criminal 
proceedings  in  respect  to  all  the  wrongs  herein  declared 
against. 

OATHS  AND  SUBSCRIPTIONS.— EXCLUSION  FROM  OFFICES.— 
COMMISSIONS.— WRITS.— CONFIRMATION  OF  LAWS.— HABEA& 
CORPUS.— THE  ENACTING  STYLE.— CONTINUANCE  OF  OFFI- 
CERS.—PROVISION  FOR  A  FUTURE  REVISION  OF  THE  CON- 
STITUTION.—ETC. 

Art.  83.  Any  person  chosen  governor,  councilor,  sen- 
ator, or  representative,  military  or  civil  officer  (town  of- 
ficers excepted),  accepting  the  trust,  shall,  before  he  pro- 


910    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

ceeds  to  execute  the  duties  of  his  office,  make  and  subscribe 
the  following  declarations,  viz. : 

I,  A  B,  do  solemnly  swear  that  I  will  bear  faith  and  trtue 
allegiance  to  the  state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  will  sup- 
port the  constitution  thereof.  So  help  me  God. 

I9  A  B,  do  solemnly  and  sincerely  swear  and  affirm  that  I 
will  faithfully  and  impartially  discharge  and  perform  all 

the  duties  incumbent  on  me  as  ,  according  to  the 

best  of  my  abilities,  agreeably  to  the  rules  and  regulations 
of  this  constitution  and  the  laws  of  the  state  of  New 
Hampshire.  So  help  me  God. 

Any  person  having  taken  and  subscribed  the  oath  of  al- 
legiance, and  the  same  being  filed  in,  the  secretary's  office, 
he  shall  not  be  obliged  to  take  said  oath  again. 

Provided)  always,  when  any  person  chosen  or  appointed 
as  aforesaid  shall  be  of  the  denomination  called  Quakers, 
or  shall  be  scrupulous  of  swearing  and  shall  decline  taking 
the  said  oaths,  such  person  shall  take  and  subscribe  them, 
omitting  the  word  "swear,"  and  likewise  the  words,  "So 
help  me  God"  subjoining  instead  thereof,  "This  I  do  under 
the  pains  and  penalties  of  perjury" 

Art.  84.  And  the  oaths  or  affirmations  shall  be  taken 
and  subscribed  by  the  governor,  before  the  president  of  the 
senate,  in  the  presence  of  both  houses  of  the  legislature;  and 
by  the  senators  and  representatives  first  elected  under  this 
constitution,  as  altered  and  amended,  before  the  president 
of  the  state  and  a  majority  of  the  council  then  in  office, 
and  forever  afterward  before  the  governor  and  council  for 
the  time  being;  and  by  all  other  officers,  before  such  per- 
sons and  in  such  manner  as  the  legislature  shall  from  time 
to  time  appoint. 

Art.  85.  All  commissions  shall  be  in  the  name  of  the 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  signed  by  the  governor,  and  at- 
tested by  the  secretary  or  his  deputy,  and  shall  have  the 
great  seal  of  the  state  affixed  thereto. 


APPENDIX  B.  911 

Art.  86.  All  writs  issuing  out  of  the  clerk's  office  in 
any  of  the  courts  of  law,  shall  be  in  the  name  of  the  state 
of  New  Hampshire.,  shall  be  under  the  seal  of  the  court 
whence  they  issue,  and  bear  teste  of  the  chief,  first  or 
senior  justice  of  the  court;  but  when  such  justice  shall  be 
interested,  then  the  writ  shall  bear  test©  of  some  other 
justice  of  the  court  to  which  the  same  shall  be  returnable; 
and  be  signed  by  the  clerk  of  such  court. 

Art.  87.  All  indictments,  presentments,  and  informa- 
tions shall  conclude,  "against  the  peace  and  dignity  of  the 
state." 

Art.  88.  The  estate  of  such  persons  as  may  destroy 
their  own  lives  shall  not  for  that  offense  be  forfeited,  but 
descend  or  ascend  in  the  same  manner  as  if  such  persons 
had  died  in  a  natural  way.  Nor  shall  any  article  which 
shall  accidentally  occasion  the  death  of  any  person  be 
henceforth  deemed  a  deodand,  or  in  any  wise  forfeited  on 
account  of  such  misfortune. 

Art.  89.  All  the  laws  which  have  heretofore  been 
adopted,  used,  and  approved  in  the  province,  colony,  or 
state  of  New  Hampshire,  and  usually  practised  on  in  the 
courts  of  law,  shall  remain  and  be  in  full  force  until  al- 
tered and  repealed  by  the  legislature,  such  parts  thereof 
only  excepted  as  are  repugnant  to  the  rights  and  liberties 
contained  in  this  Constitution;  provided,  that  nothing 
herein  contained,  when  compared  with  the  twenty-third 
article  in  the  bill  of  rights,  shall  be  construed  to  affect  the 
laws  already  made  respecting  the  persons  or  estates  of  ab- 
sentees. 

Art.  90.  The  privilege  and  benefit  of  the  habeas  corpus 
shall  be  enjoyed  in  this  state,  in  the  most  free,  easy,  cheap, 
expeditious,  and  ample  manner,  and  shall  not  be  suspended 
by  the  legislature  except  upon  the  most  urgent  and  press- 
ing occasions,  and  for  a  time  not  exceeding  three  months. 

Art.  91.     The  enacting  style  in  making  and  passing  acts, 


912     JOURNAL  OF  .CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

statutes,  and  laws  shall  be,  Be  it  enacted  ~by  the  senate  and 
house  of  representatives  in  general  court  convened. 

Art.  92.  No  governor  or  judge  of  the  supreme  judicial 
court  shall  hold  any  office  or  place  under  the  authority  of 
this  state,  except  such  as  by  this  constitution  they  are 
admitted  to  hold,  saving  that  the  judges  of  the  said  court  may 
hold  the  offices  of  justices  of  the  peace  throughout  the 
state;  nor  shall  they  hold  any  place  or  office  or  receive  any 
pension  or  salary,  from  any  other  state,  government,  or 
power  whatever. 

Art.  93.  No  person  shall  be  capable  of  exercising  at  the 
same  time  more  than  one  of  the  following  offices  in  this 
state,  viz.:  judge  of  probate,  sheriff,  register  of  deeds;  and 
never  more  than  two  offices  of  profit,  which  may  be  held 
by  appointment  of  the  governor,  or  governor  and  council, 
or  senate  and  house  of  representatives,  or  superior  or  in- 
ferior courts,  military  offices  and  offices  of  justices  of  the- 
peace  excepted. 

Art.  94.  No  person  holding  the  office  of  judge  of  any 
court  (except  special  judges),  secretary,  treasurer  of  the 
state,  attorney-general,  commissary-general,  military  officers 
receiving  pay  from  the  continent  or  this  state  (ex- 
cepting officers  of  the  militia  occasionally  called  forth  on 
an  emergency),  register  of  deeds,  sheriffs,  or  officers  of  the 
customs,  including  naval  officers,  collectors  of  excise  and 
state  and  continental  taxes  hereafter  appointed,  and  not 
having  settled  their  accounts  with  the  respective  officers 
witth  whom  it  is  their  duty  to  settle  such  accounts,  mem- 
bers of  congress,  or  any  person  holding  any  office  under 
the  United  States,  shall  at  the  same  time  hold  the  office  of 
governor,  or  have  a  seats  in  the  senate  or  house  of  repre- 
sentatives or  council;  but  his  being  chosen  and  appointed 
to  and  accepting  the  same  shall  operate  as  a  resignation 
of  his  seat  in  the  chair,  senate^  or  house  of  representatives, 
or  council,  and  the  place  so  vacated  shall  be  filled  up.  No 


APPENDIX  B.  913 

member  of  the  council  shall  have  a  seat  in  the  senate  or 
house   of   representatives. 

Art.  95.  Xo  person  shall  ever  be  admitted  to  hold  a 
seat  in  the  legislature,  or  any  office  of  trust  or  importance 
under  this  government,  who  in  the  due  course  of  law,  has 
been,  convicted  of  bribery  or  corruption  in  obtaining  an 
election  or  appointment. 

Art.  96.  In  all  cases  where  sums  of  money  are  men- 
tioned in  this  constitution,  the  value  thereof  shall  be  com- 
puted in  silver  at  six  shillings  and  eight  pence  per  ounce. 

Art.  97.  To  the  end  that  there  may  be  no  failure  of 
justice  or  danger  to  the  state  by  the  alterations  and 
amendments  made  in  the  constitution,  the  general  court 
is  hereby  fully  authorized  and  directed  to  fix  the  time 
when  the  alterations  and  amendments  shall  take  effect,, 
and  make  the  necessar}^  arrangements  accordingly. 

Art.  98.  It  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  selectmen  and  as- 
sessors of  the  several  towns  and  places  in  this  state,  in 
warning  the  first  annual  meetings  for  the  choice  of  sen- 
ators, after  the  expiration  of  seven  years  from  the  adop- 
tion of  this  constitution  as  amended,  to  insert  expressly 
in  the  warrant  this  purpose  among  the  others  for  the  meet- 
ing, to  wit:  to  take  the  sense  of  the  qualified  voters  on  the 
subject  of  a  revision  of  the  constitution;  and  the  meeting 
being  warned  accordingly,  and  not  otherwise,  the  moder- 
ator shall  take  the  sense  of  the  qualified  voters  present  as 
to  the  necessity  of  a  revision;  and  a  return  of  the  number 
of  votes  for  and  against  such  necessity  shall  be  made  by 
the  clerks,  sealed  up  and  directed  to  the  general  court  at 
their  then  next  session;  and  if  it:  shall  appear  to  the  general 
court;  by  such  return  that  the  sense  of  the  people  of  the 
state  has  been  taken,  and  that  in  the  opinion  of  a  majority 
of  the  qualified  voters  in  the  state  present  and  voting  at 
said  meetings,  there  is  a  necessity  for  a  revision  of  the 
constitution,  it  shall  be  the  duty  of  the  general  court  *o 
58 


914    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

call  a  convention  for  that  purpose;  otherwise  the  general 
court  shall  direct  the  sense  of  the  people  to  be  taken,  and 
then  proceed  in  the  manner  before  mentioned;  the  dele- 
gates toi  be  chosen  in  the  same  manner  and  proportioned 
as  the  representatives  to  the  general  court;  provided,  that 
no  alteration  shall  be  made  in  this  constitution  before  the 
same  shall  be  laid  before  the  towns  and  unincorporated 
places  and  approved  by  two  thirds  of  the  qualified  voters 
present  and  voting  on  the  subject. 

Art.  99.  And  the  same  method  of  taking  the  sense  of 
the  people  as  to  a  revision  of  the  Constitution,  and  calling 
a  convention  for  that  purpose,  shall  be  observed  afterward, 
at  the  expiration  of  every  seven  years. 

Art.  100.  This  form  of  government  shall  be  enrolled 
on  parchment  and  deposited  in  the  secretary's  office,  and 
be  a  part,  of  the  laws  of  the  land,  and  printed  copies  there- 
of sh^all  be  prefixed  to  the  books  containing  the  laws  of 
this  state  in  all  future  editions  thereof. 


INDEX 


INDEX   OF   NAMES   OF   PLACES. 


Acworth 15,  91,  174,  329,  331 

Albany 11 

Alexandria 16,  777 

Allensto  wn 11 

Alstead 14 

Alton 10,  19,  249,  778 

Amherst 12,  373,  410,  524,  689,  770 

Andover 6,  11,  162,  264,  376,  420,  449,  534,  538 

549,  550,  599,  622,  681,  717,  735,  797 

Antrim 12,  204,  522 

Ashland 16 

Atkinson 8 

Auburn 8,  493 

Barnstead 10,  90,  448,  606 

Harrington 9,  19 

Bath 7,  16 

Bartlett 11,  92 

Bedford 12,  90,  289,  377,  378,  498,  670,  703 

Belmont 10 

Bennington, , 12,  552 

Benton 16 

Berlin 17,  21,  91,  92,  360,  371,  499,  519,  520,  523,  548,  665,  768 

Bethlehem 16 

Boscawen 11,  90,  609,  651,  709,  802 

Bow 11,  20,  24,  26,  27,  28,  29,  30,  32,  38,  39,  40,  72,  74,  80 

81,  92,  96,  99,  103,  129,  142,  156,  157,  182,  183,  188 
194,  197,  198,  199,  203,  243,  244,  248,  266,  331,  336 
337,  361,  399,  416,  480,  481,  482,  483,  490,  494,  511 
513,  516,  517,  526,  527,  528,  601,  605,  606,  614,  615 
616,  623,  627,  628,  629,  678,  683,  718,  719,  764,  792 

813,  857 

Bradford 11 

Brentwood 8 

Bridgewater 16 

Bristol 16,  19,  79,  89,  92,  420,  432,  671,  725 

Brookfield 11,  91 

Brookline 12 

Oampton 16 

Canaan 16,  91 


918     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Candia 8 

Canterbury 11 

Carroll 17 

Center  Harbor 10,  207 

Charlestown 15 

Chatham 11 

Chester 8 

Chesterfield 14 

Chichester 11 

Claremont 15,  20,  23,  24,  90,  91,  371,  717,  771 

Clarksville 17 

Colebrook 7,  17,  20,  93,  163,  548,  684,  776 

Columbia 17 

Concord 6,  7,  11,  12,  18,  21,  23,  24,  26,  28,  29,  30,  31,  32,  35 

36,  37,  40,  75,  76,  77,  78,  79,  80,  82,  84,  86,  89,  90,  91 
92, 93, 98, 101, 102, 105, 124, 131, 133, 136, 140, 141, 157 
168,  170,  171,  172,  176,  181,  182,  183,  184,  186,  187 
189,  190,  191,  192,  194,  195,  196,  197,  198,  202,  203 
206,  207,  208,  223,  230,  239,  246,  250,  265,  267,  268 
269,  272,  273,  274,  294,  295,  296,  301,  315,  331,  337 
338,  358,  359,  360,  361,  371,  372,  378,  392,  395,  397 
400,  417,  433,  436,  449,  452,  456,  457,  459,  460,  461 
462,  470,  471,  473,  475,  487,  488,  489,  490,  494,  498 
511,  512,  513,  514,  515,  518,  519,  520,  521,  524,  526 
527,  543,  550,  553,  581,  587,  588,  591,  592,  593,  594 
595,  597,  598,  599,  600,  603,  605,  606,  607,  608,  625 
626,  627,  630,  632,  638,  650,  655,  659,  662,  666,  670 
677,  681,  682,  683,  684,  690,  700,  702,  709,  711,  712 
714,  717,  727,  741,  745,  749,  750,  751,  754,  757,  763 
764,  765,  766,  768,  780,  782,  783,  784,  792,  798,  804 
807,  808,  809,  810,  813,  814,  820,  821,  822 

Conway 6,  11,  20,  207 

Cornish 15,  18,  173,  203,  770 

Croydon 15,  207 

Dalton 17 

Danbury .•  •  •     12 

Danville 8 

Deerfield 8 

Deering 13- 

Derry 8,  92,  141,  454,  550,  734 

Dorchester 16,  288,  771 

Dover 6,  9,  18,  19,  21,  22,  24,  92,  207,  483- 

Dublin 14 

Dummer 17 

Dunbarton 12 

Durham..  1O 


INDEX.  919 

East  Kingston 8 

Easton 16 

Eaton 11,  92,  178,  684,  784 

Effingham 11,  247,  344,  445,  728 

Ellsworth 16 

Enfield 16,  466 

Epping 8 

Epsom 12 

Errol 17 

Exeter 6,  8,  20,  21,  30,  85,  90,  91,  92,  93.  250,  275,  337,  358 

381,  390,  391,  394,.  397,  400,  409,  450,  451,  475,  488 
514,  515,  624,  627,  637,  743,  792,  797 

Farmington 10 

Fitzwilliam 7,  20,  31,  266 

Francestown 13 

Franeonia 16,  91 

Franklin 3,  12,  19,  31,  90,  91,  92,  130,  165,  168,  169,  170,  179 

264,  274,  349,  419,  447,  448,  449,  452,  457,  529,  536 
538,  601,  688,  695,  716,  752,  754,  810,  849 

Freedom 11,  19,  21 

Fremont 8 

Gilford 10 

Gilmanton 10,  31,  92,  372,  778 

Gilsum 14,  21 

Goffstown 13 

Gorham 7,  17,  90 

Goshen 15 

Grafton 16 

Grantham 15,  207 

Greenfield 13,  91,  528 

Greenland 8 

Greenville 13 

Groton 16,  37 

Hampstead 8 

Hampton 8 

Hampton  Falls 8 

Hancock 13 

Hanover! 16,  91,  238,  333,  336,  596,  782 

Harrisville 14 

Hart's  Location 11 

Haverhill 16,  18,  91,  92,  96,  97,  348,  447,  455,  461,  467,  551,  722 

Hebron 16 

Henniker 12,  142,  773 

Hill 12 

Hillsborough 13,  32,  38,  91,  92,  141,  296,  395,  542,  731 

Hinsdale 14 


920    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Holderness 16,  142 

Hollis 13,  778 

Hooksett 12 

Hopkinton 12 

Hudson 13,  204,  240,  422,  607,  609,  784 

Jackson 11 

Jaffrey 14,  91 

Jefferson 17 

Keene 7,  15,  18,  20,  21,  22,  30,  90,  91,  92,  180,  203 

207,  241,  335,  451,  521,  680,  751,  763,  838 

Kensington 9,  30,  404,  593 

Kingston 9,  90 

Laconia 6,  8,  10, 19,  20,  21,  23,  31,  83,  90,  91,  92,  207,  268 

295,  305,  527,  528,  678,  680,  704,  709,  782,  796 

Lancaster 3,  17,  30,  31,  37,  73,  88,  90,  129,  142,  155,  156 

157,  199,  323,  362,  398,  406,  440,  462,  522,  547 
583,  608,  660,  679,  684,  719,  768,  769,  799,  822 

Landaff 16,  207 

Langdon 7,  15 

Lebanon 16,  93 

Lee 10 

Lempster 15 

Lincoln 16 

Lisbon 16,  20,  90,  95,  487,  519,  544,  616,  675 

Litchfield 13 

Littleton 16,  18,  20,  22,  24,  72,  73,  75,  79,  82,  85,  90,  92,  94,  103 

131,  133,  142,  177,  192,  194,  297,  397,  398,  449,  450 
453,  457,  458,  461,  472,  473,  476,  481,  482,  483,  489 
490,  510,  512,  522,  554,  613,  615,  616,  619,  709,  711 

715,  737,  739 

Londonderry 9,  18,  19,  22,  201,  202,  322,  359,  360,  468,  4S2,  484,  491 

493,  533,  538,  539,  591,  592,  696,  702,  738,  740,  821 

Loudon 12,  19 

Lyman 16 

Lyme 16,  207 

Lyndeborough 13 

Madbury 10 

Madison 11 

Manchester 3,  6,  7,  13,  18,  20,  21,  22,  23,  31,  40,  78,  82,  84,  86,  89 

90,  91,  92,  105,  129,  141,  142,  178,  179,  181,  182,  196 
206,  207,  242,  243,  286,  296,  297,  298,  304,  332,  338,  352 
360,  361,  362,  372,  375,  391,  394,  400,  411,  420,  437,  451 
453,  455,  458,  459,  485,  489,  491,  515,  517,  524,  525,  526 
592,  599,  601,  602,  608,  613,  621,  629,  634,  650,  651,  663 
671,  673,  684,  691,  698,  709,  715,  717,  718,  729,  749,  750 
751,  762,  763,  779,  781,  782,  797,  799,  805,  814,  822 


INDEX.  921 

Marlborough 15,  20 

Marlow 15,  769 

Mason 13 

Meredith 10 

Merrimack 14 

Middleton 10 

Milan 17 

Milford 14,  92,  140,  207,  240,  499 

Milton 10 

Monroe 16 

Mont  Vernon 14 

Moultonborough 11 

Nashua 7,  14,  19,  20,  21,  22,  23,  24,  40,  91,  92,  130,  170,  264 

265,  294,  387,  444,  447,  448,  450,  451,  452,  453,  454,  488 

511,  512,  513,  545,  593,  615,  629,  658,  668,  679,  680,  681 

683,  709,  722,  730,  772,  799,  804,  820,  821 

Nelson 15,  125,  139,  190,  300,  474,  618 

Newbury 12 

Newcastle 9 

Newfields 9,  777 

Newington 9 

Newmarket 9,  207 

Newport 7,  15,  21,  86,  90,  91,  93,  126,  206 

414,  417,  451,  540,  731,  853 

Newton 9 

New  Boston 14 

New  Durham 10,  359 

New  Hampton 8,  10,  23,  92,  169,  445 

New  Ipswich 14 

New  London 12,  22 

Northfield 12 

Northumberland 17,  207 

North  wood 9 

North  Hampton 9,  141,  385 

Nottingham 9 

Orange 16 

Orford 16 

Ossipee 11,  19 

Pelham 14 

Pembroke 12,  90,  207,  514,  682 

Peterborough 14,  98,  151,  177,  284,  286,  430,  442 

447,  455,  650,  720,  774,  799,  827 

Piermont 16 

Pittsburg 17,  405 

Pittsfield 12,  499 


922    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Plainfield 15,  288,  784- 

Plaistow D 

Plymouth 16,  20,  21,  92,  241,  292,  609,  610,  630 

Portsmouth 6,  9,  19,  20,  23,  30,  90,  91,  92,  97,  141,  207,  249,  250 

292,  396,  446,  516,  518,  522,  523,  541,  554,  588,  596- 
597,  607,  626,  672,  684,  699,  714,  719,  752,  807 

Kandolph 17 

Raymond 9,  90 

Richmond 15 

Rindge 15 

Rochester 10,  20,  90,  91 

Rollinsford 6,  10,  142 

Roxbury 15,  772 

Rumney 16 

Rye 9 

Salem 9,  775 

Salisbury 12 

Sanbornton 11 

Sandown 9 

Sandwich 6,  11 

Seabrook 9 

Sharon 14 

Shelburne 17,  91 

Somersworth 10,  31,  74,  75,  76,  78,  81,  92,  159,  237,  396,  510,  537 

602,  669,  701,  702,  733,  763,  764,  765,  772,  804,  823 

South  Hampton 9- 

Springfield l.> 

Stark 17,  142,  420 

Stewartstown ; 17,  22,  207 

Stoddard 15 

Strafford 10 

Stratford .' 17 

Stratham 9,  71,  75,  79,  80,  84,  85,  86,  98,  190 

200,  265,  275,  410,  411,  510,  756 

Sullivan 15,  91 

Sunapee 15,  93,  521,  522,  770 

Surry 15 

Sutton 12 

Swanzey 15 

Tamworth 11 

Temple 7,  14,  90,  172,  452,  455,  729,  756- 

Thornton . .     16 

Tilton 11,  21,  78,  90,  91,  129,  268,  335,  407,  409 

430,  452,  468,  599,  600,  609,  798,  822 

Troy 15,  90 

Tuftonborough 11 


INDEX.  923 

Unity 15 

Wakefield 7,  8,  11,  31,  89,  90,  267,  784 

Walpole 15,  92 

Warner 12,  35,  93,  95,  336,  460,  461,  462,  468 

Warren 17,  31 

Washington 15,  20 

Waterville 17 

Weare 14 

Webster 12 

Wentworth 7,  17,  92,  295,  361,  447,  724 

Westmoreland 15 

Whitefield 17,  20,  297,  621 

Wilmot 12 

Wilton 14,  18,  21,  90,  709 

Winchester 15,  92,  207 

Windham 9,  776 

Windsor 14 

Wolfeborough 11,  90,  207 

Woodstock 17,  33,  91,  103,  338,  523,  735,  856 


INDEX  OF  NAMES  OF  PERSONS. 


Abbott,  Charles  W 8,  141,  499,  550,  588,  638,  674,  706,  747,  811 

Abbott,  Jacob  J 13,  499,  589,  674,  707,  747,  8ia 

Adams,  Edward  H 9,  91,  499 

Aldrich,  David  M.  .17,  20,  297,  492,  499,  590,  621,  640,  674,  709,  747,  812 

Aldrich,  Edgar 16,  18,  19,  30,  72,  73,  75,  79,  82,  85,  90,  94,  103 

131,  133,  142,  177,  192,  194,  297,  397,  398,  449 
450,  453,  457,  458,  461,  472,  473,  476,  481,  482 
483,  489,  490,  493,  499,  510,  512,  522,  554,  590 
613,  615,  616,  619,  674,  679,  707,  709,  711,  715 

737,  739,  748 

Allen,  George  W 22,  800,  802 

Allen,  Henry  W 13,  492,  499,  639,  674,  708,  748,  811 

Amidon,  George  F 14,  492,  499,  675,  708,  746,  813 

Annett,  Albert 14,  91,  492,  499,  590,  640,  674,  708,  748,  812 

Ashley,  Herbert  H 16,  288,  492,  499,  590,  640,  675,  709,  747,  771,  813 

Avery,  Bert  H 16,  499,  590,  640,  675,  709,  747,  812 

Bacon,  Stephen  H 13,  492,  499,  589,  639,  674,  708,  746,  811 

Baker,  Henry  M 11,  20,  24,  26,  27,  28,  29,  30,  32,  38,  39,  40,  72 

74,  80,  81,  92,  96,  99,  103,  129,  140,  142,  156 
157,  182,  183,  188,  194,  197,  198,  199,  203 
243,  244,  248,  266,  331,  336,  337,  361,  399 
416,  480,  481,  482,  483,  490,  492,  494,  498 
499,  511,  513,  516,  517,  526,  527,  528,  589 
590,  601,  605,  606,  614,  615,  616,  623,  627 
628,  629,  639,  640,  675,  678,  683,  708,  718 
719,  746,  764,  792,  812,  813,  857 

Bales,  George  E 14,  18,  21,  90,  499,  590,  639,  707,  709,  748,  812 

Bartlett,  George  H 15,  93,  492,  499,  521,  522,  552,  590 

640,  674,  709,  746,  770,  813 

Barton,  Jesse  M 7,  15,  21,  86,  91,  126,  206,  414,  416,  417 

451,  499,  590,  674,  707,  731,  746,  812,  853 

Battles,  Daniel  F 9,  499,  589,  673,  706,  746,  811 

Blackwell,  Henry  B 336 

Blackwell,  Lucy  Stone 336 

Blair,  Henry  W 691,  694 

Blake,  Amos  J 7,  14,  20,  31,  266,  499 

Blanchard,  Edwin  F 14,  499,  639,  675,  707,  746 


926     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Blanchard,  Harvey  Augustus. .  .17,  405,  492,  499,  590,  640,  674,  709,  747 

Blodgett,  Frank  E 11,  499,  640,  .675,  706,  747,  813 

Blodgett,  Isaac  N 3,  12,  31,  91,  460,  500,  601,  639 

Boivin,  Joseph  A 13,  500,  590,  640,  675,  748,  813 

Boudreau,  James  A 17,  493,  500,  590,  640,  674,  707,  748,  813 

Boutwell,  Henry  W 13,  500,  639,  707,  747,  811 

Bowles,  Marshall  A 16,  500,  747 

Bradley,  Arthur  C 15,  90,  500,  640,  707,  748 

Briggs,  James  F 3,  13,  31,  89,  90,  206,  297,  331,  361,  492,  500,  525 

526,  589,  613,  640,  663,  675,  679,  708,  747,  811 

Brigham,  Geo.  H 22,  800,  802 

Britton,  A.  H.  &  Co 801 

Britton,  Frank 17,  492,  500,  709,  747,  812 

Brockway,  Willie  D 15,  20,  493,  500,  590,  707,  746 

Brooks,  Lyman 15,  492,  500,  590,  640,  674,  707,  748,  812 

Brown,  Joseph  L 15,*  500,  675,  707,  746,  812 

Brown,  Levi  W 11,  19,  491,  500,  589,  639,  708,  746,  811 

Bryar,  Fred  E 10,  500,  708,  746,  811 

Buckley,  Fred  A 14,  493,  500,  590,  640,  675,  707.  748,  813 

Bucklin,  Alpheus  S 16,  493,  500,  590,  674,  707,  746,  777,  812 

Buckminster,  Charles  W.  ...15,  492,  500,  590,  639,  674,  708,  746,  772,  612 

Buckshorn,  Louis  H 521,  801 

Burley,  Harrison  G 9,  500,  638,  708,  746 

Burpee,  Moses  P 15,  207,  500,  590,  640,  674,  707,  746,  812 

Busiel,  John  T 10,  90,  305,  500,  640,  708,  747,  812 

Buxton,  Willis  G 11,  90,  493,  500,  589,  609,  639,  651 

675,  706,  709,  746,  802,  813 

Caldwell,  Horace 12,  500,  589,  639,  673,  708,  746,  811 

Carbee,  Henry  C 7,  16,  492,  500,  590,  640,  675,  709,  746,  813 

Carter,  Solon  A 396,  801 

Casey,  Michael 12,  433,  493,  500,  581,  589,  639,  675,  707,  747,  811 

Cass,  Lewis  R 15,  500,  590,  639,  674,  708,  746,  813 

Gate,  Charles  F 9,  491,  500,  589,  638,  673,  708,  746,  812 

Catt,  Carrie  Chapman 336 

Chamberlin,  Horatio  G 10,  359,  491,  500,  638,  673,  706,  746 

Chandler,  William  E 12,  26,  28,  29,  31,  35,  37,  75,  77,  92,  101,  102 

136,  140,  176,  181,  191,  194,  196,  197,  198 
202,  203,  208,  223,  230,  239,  250,  265,  267 
268,  338,  358,  372,  392,  395,  436,  449,  452 
456,  457,  459,  460,  461,  462,  473,  492,  494 
500,  515,  526,  527,  553,  587,  588,  589,  591 
592,  594,  595,  597,  603,  605,  606,  607,  608 
625,  627,  630,  638,  640,  675,  677,  681,  682 
683,  684,  708,  709,  711,  717,  727,  749,  750 
751,  754,  763,  765,  766,  768,  780,  782,  798 
804,  808,  809,  810,  813,  814,  820,  82.1,  822 


INDEX.  927 

Chapman,  Joseph  C 14,  493,  500,  590,  674,  707,  746,  812 

Chase,  Amos  C 9,  90,  491,  500,  589,  638,  673,  707,  746,  811 

Chase,  Ira  A 16,  19,  79,  89,  92,  420,  432,  493,  500,  590 

640,  671,  674,  707,  725,  748,  812 

Chase,  Mary  N 35,  336 

Chase,  William  M 208 

Chesley,  Daniel 10,  500,  589,  706,  746 

Chickering,  Jacob  E 12,  493,  500,  589^  707,  747,  813 

Clark,  Allan  C 10,  207,  500,  589,  639,  674,  708,  746,  812 

Clark,  Arthur  E 801 

Clark,  George  H 9,  491,  500,  589,  638,  673,  708,  746,  776,  812 

Clement,  Frank  O 13,  178,  207,  296,  391,  493,  500,  590,  60S 

639,  675,  707,  748,  781,  782,  799,  811 

Clement,  Stephen  H 15,  492,  500,  675,  708,  746,  812 

Clough,  Jeremiah  A 12,  19,  493,  500,  589,  746,  811 

Clough,  Joseph  L 14,  452,  453,  492,  501,  590,  593 

639,  674,  708,  748,  770,  813 

Clow,  Stephen  W 11,  90,  491,  501,  589,  639,  747,  811 

Clyde,  George  W.  .13,  204,  240,  422,  492,  501,  589,  607,  609,  640,  784,  813 
Cochrane,  George  E 10,  20,  90,  492,  501,  589,  638 

646,  650,  674,  706,  746,  811 

Coffin,  J.  E 801 

Cogswell,  Thomas 10,  31,  92,  372,  491,  501,  639,  708,  746,  778,  812 

Colbath,  Horace  N 10,  90,  448,  491,  501,  589,  606 

646,  650,  674,  708,  746,  812 

Colby,  George  W 13,  501,  589,  639,  675,  708,  747,  813 

Colby,  Ira  G 15,  20,  90,  501,  640,  674,  707,  748,  812 

Colby,  James  F 16,  91,  238,  333,  336,  493,  501 

590,  596,  707,  748,  782,  813 

Cole,  Wallace  W 9,  501,  589,  640,  674,  708,  747,  775,  812 

Collins,  Clinton 15,  20,  501 

Collins,  John  S 14,  21,  501,  639,  707,  748 

Colman,  Dudley  C 11,  91,  501,  589,  639,  673,  708,  746,  811 

Concord  Monitor 801 

Conley,  Elmer  E 8,  501,  674,  706,  745,  812 

Cooke,  Charles  H 14,  501,  639,  675,  708,  748,  812 

Cooper,  James  M 801 

Corey,  Guy  E 9,  23,  141,  501 

Craig,  Charles  C 16,  493,  501,  590,  640,  675,  707,  747,  812 

Craig,  Rockwell  F 15,  501,  590,  639,  675,  708,  746,  769 

Crawford,  George  W 17,  492,  501,  590,  640,  709,  748,  812 

Cross,  David 13,  18,  30,  40,  86,  90,  124,  140,  437,  440,  493,  501 

517,  589,  621,  640,  644,  674,  707,  715,  747 

749,  750,  779,  805,  811 

Cullen,  William  A.  A 9,  446,  491,  501,  518,  589,  596,  597,  607 

626,  638,  708,  714,  747,  812 
Cumings,  Henry 16,  466,  492,  501,  590,  640,  674,  709,  748,  812 


928    JOUBNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Daley,  Daniel  J 17,  91,  360,  371,  493,  499,  501,  519,  520 

548,  590,  640,  665,  674,  707,  747,  768 

Davis,  Carlos  C 15,  207,  501,  639,  675,  708,  746,  812 

Day,  Auburn  J 15,  501,  639,  675,  707,  748,  812 

Dearborn,  Henry  C 16,  501,  640,  707,  748,  812 

Dearborn,  Luther  E 11,  92,  178,  501,  589,  639,  648 

675,  708,  746,  784,  812 

Demerritt,  George  H 10,  19,  249,  491,  501,  589,  640,  708,  746,  768 

Desmarais,  Leon 14,  492,  501,  590,  640,  675,  708,  748,  813 

Dewey,  Jesse  E 16,  492,  501,  510,  640,  674,  709,  748,  812 

Dickson,  John  H.,  Jr 801 

Dodge,  James  E 6,  13,  501,  589,  639,  675,  707,  747,  800,  811 

Dodge,  Lendall 14,  492,  501,  590,  639,  708,  746 

Dodge,  William  F 17,  501,  590,  640,  674,  707,  747,  812 

Dolbeer,  John  H 12,  492,  501,  589,  639,  673,  708,  746,  811 

Dole,  Charles  A 16,  93,  501 

Dorr,  Henry  F 6,  11,  492,  501,  589,  675,  706,  746,  811 

Downes,  George  E 13,  492,  501,  589,  639,  708,  746 

Drake,  Charles  B 16,  493,  502,  590,  640,  675,  707,  748,  813 

Dresser,  John 16,  502,  590,  640,  675,  707,  748 

Drew,  Irving  W 17,  90,  362,  406,  502,  522 

Dudley,  David  F 11,  91,  371,  400,  471,  492,  502,  589 

639,  675,  708,  784,  792,  811 
Dudley,  Jason  H 7,  17,  20,  163,  502 

Barley,  Thomas,  Jr 14,  502,  590,  639,  675,  707,  748 

Eastman,  E.  C.  &  Co 801 

Eastman,  Edwin  G 8,  20,  91,  250,  275,  390,  391,  394 

397,  400,  409,  488,  491,  502,  514 
515,  627,  637,  638,  707,  743,  746 

Eaton,  George  E 8,  502,  588,  638,  674,  707,  745,  812 

Edgerly,  James  A 10,  31,  74,  75,  76,  78,  81,  92,  159,  237,  396 

491,  502,  510,  537,  589,  602,  640 
669,  673,  701,  702,  708,  733,  747 
763,  764,  765,  772,  804,  811,  823 

Emery,  Samuel  W 9,  396,  502,  541,  638,  672,  673 

699,  706,  747,  752,  812 

Emery,  Simon  P 9,  207,  502,  589,  706,  747 

Emory,  Warren  W 15,  502,  639,  674,  707,  748 

Evans,  Alfred  R 7,  17,  90,  502,  590,  640,  674,  709,  748,  812 

Evans,  David  H 8,  9,  23,  141,  385,  491,  502,  589,  640,  811 

Evans,  Ira  C.,  Co 801 

Everett,  Edward  H 14,  19,  22,  40,  502,  804,  811,  820,  821 

Fairbanks,  George  E. . .  .15,  18,  173,  203,  492,  502,  590,  640,  709,  746,  770 

Farrington,  Henry  A 13,  332,  492,  502,  589,  639,  640,  674,  708 

709,  746,  747,  811 


INDEX.  929 

Farwell,  Frank  C 14,  493,  502,  590,  675,  707,  812 

Fellows,  William  B 11,  21,  91,  129,  407,  409,  410,  452,  468,  492 

502,  589,  640,  673,  706,  747,  798,  811 

Fessenden,  Orville  D 12,  492,  502,  589,  639,  675,  708,  746,  813 

Flanders,  Ephraim  G 8,  492,  502,  588,  638,  673,  706,  745,  811 

Flanders,  Robert  L 16,  142,  502,  590,  640,  674,  707,  747,  812 

Flather,  William  J 14,  492,  502,  590,  639,  674,  708,  748,  812 

Flood,  John  J 14,  502,  590,  639,  674,  811 

Fogg,  George  H 13,  493,  502,  589,  639,  707,  746,  811 

Follansby,  William  H.  C 6,  8,  91,  491,  502,  638,  707,  746,  811 

Folsom,  Channing 9,  483,  491,  502,  589,  638,  673,  746,  811 

Foote,  Charles  E 11,  492,  502,  589,  639,  673,  708,  747,  813 

Ford,  Edward 16,  493,  502,  590,  640,  675,  747 

Ford,  John  V 12,  493,  502,  589,  639,  673,  707,  746,  811 

Ford,  S.  S 800 

Foskett,  Liberty  W 15,  502,  590,  674,  708,  748,  812 

Foster,  William  A. . .  .7,  12,  21,  331,  493,  502,  589,  639,  673,  706,  747,  811 

Fowler,  George  W .19,  801 

Frame,  James 11,  492,  502,  589,  640,  675,  708,  746,  811 

French,  John  E 11,  493,  502,  639,  706,  746,  81$ 

French,  John  H 16,  493,  502,  590,  640,  675,  707,  747,  812 

Frink,  John  S.  H 8,  30,  502,  638- 

Fuller,  Arthur  O 8,  21,  30,  85,  90,  93,  358,  381,  450,  451,  475,  492' 

502,  588,  624,  640,  673,  707,  747,  792,  79T 
Furbush,  George  P 10,  503,  638,  706,  747,  811 

Gardner,  T.  A 800,  802' 

Gelinas,  Gaspard  A 10,  503,  589,  638,  706,  747,  811 

Gerrish,  Fred  E 10,  503,  638,  706,  746 

Gibson,  James  L 6,  11,  491,  503,  589,  639,  673,  708,  747,  811 

Gillispie,  Charles  F 8,  503,  588,  706,  747,  811 

Gilman,  Samuel  J 11,  491,  503,  589,  639,  675,  708,  746 

Gilmore,  George  C .7,  13,  23,  92,  179,  332,  394,  411,  503,  524 

639,  671,  673,  675,  708,  717,  718,  747 

Glancy,  William  F 13,  21,  503,  589,  639,  675,  748,  813: 

Glazier,  Yan  B 16,  207,  503,  640,  674,  709,  747,  812 

Goodnow,  Edwin  J 15,  492,  503,  590,  639,  674,  707,  748,  812 

Goodwin,  Andrew  J 11,  503,  589,  675,  708,  746 

Gordon,  Francis  A 14,  503,  590,  639,  675,  707,  746,  811 

Gorrell,  Horace  W 10,  491,  503,  640,  708,  747,  811 

Greager,  Herman 7,  13,  87,  492,  503,  590,  639,  674,  709,  748,  813 

Green,  George  H 17,  493,  503,  590,  640,  674,  707,  747 

Green,  Henry  F 16,  20,  92,  503,  590,  640,  674,  709,  748,  812 

Green,  Oliver  B 13,  493,  503,  589,  639,  675,  707,  747,  813 

Greene,  Frank  P 12,  492,  503,  589,  639,  708,  746,  813 

Griffin,  Dennis  F 13,  493,  503,  589,  639,  675,  707,  748,  813 

Grover,  Horace  T 9,  503- 

59 


930    JOUKNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Guerin,  Moise 13,  503,  590,  640,  707,  748,  811 

Gunnison,  William  T 10,  91,  492,  503,  589,  638,  706,  747,  812 

Hadley,  Herbert  O 7,  14,  90,  172,  452,  455,  492,  503,  646,  650 

729,  746,  756,  812 

Hall,  Angelo 35 

Hall,  Dwight , 9,  503,  589,  708,  747,  812 

Hall,  Frank  H 10,  492,  503,  589,  638,  706,  746,  811 

Hall,  James  M 18,  493,  503,  590,  639,  675,  707,  748,  811 

Hall,  William  C 15,  493,  503,  590,  639,  674,  707,  748,  812 

Hallinan,  Stephen  L 14,  503,  707,  748 

Ham,  Samuel  F 9,  250,  492,  503,  589,  638,  674,  706,  747,  812 

Hamblett,  Chas.  J 14,  19,  20,  91,  130,  170,  294,  387,  492,  503,  511 

512,  513,  615,  639,  668,  674,  679 
680,  683,  708,  709,  746,  772,  811 

Hanson,  Burnham 9,  503,  589,  590,  638,  706,  747,  812 

Hanson,  Frank  L 15,  492,  503,  590,  640,  709,  746,  812 

Harbor,  Felix  G.,  et  als 7,  21,  87 

Harmon,  Horace  W 11,  247,  344,  445,  491,  503,  589,  639,  673,  708 

728,  746,  811 

Harriman,  Walter  C 14,  503,  590,  639,  658,  674,  707,  746,  813 

Harriman,  Walter  H 24,  800,  802 

Hartley,  William  H 7,  503,  590,  707 

Harvey,  Warren 13,  89,  492,  503,  589,  639,  674,  708,  747,  811 

Head,  Eugene  S 12,  503,  673,  707,  746,  811 

Healey,  James  M 9,  90,  504,  638,  646,  650,  708,  746,  811 

Henry,  James  E 16,  504,  707 

Hersey,  Fred  E 11,  207,  504,  639,  706,  746,  811 

Hibbard,  Clarence  E 16,  504,  590,  640,  674,  709,  748,  812 

Hildreth,  Eugene  E 13,  504,  589,  813 

Hildreth,  Henry  A 16,  504,  590,  709,  748 

Hill,  Bushrod  W 13,  493,  504,  589,  639,  675,  707,  747 

Hinman,  Havilah  B 17,  493,  504,  590,  640,  675,  707,  747,  812 

Hobson,  Sewell  M 11,  207,  492,  504,  589,  639,  673,  706,  747,  811 

Hollis,  Abijah 11,  92,  206,  492,  504,  589,  639,  675,  708,  747,  813 

Holman,  Samuel  W 13,  32,  38,  92,  141,  504,  639,  708 

Holmes,  Herbert  A 7,  15,  493,  504,  590,  640,  675,  707,  746,  812 

Hooke,  Lincoln  F 8,  491,  504,  588,  638,  673,  707,  746,  811 

Horan,  Timothy  E 13,  504,  589,  639,  675,  707,  748,  813 

Howard,  Alfred  F 9,  20,  90,  491,  504,  516,  589,  638,  644^  673,  708 

719,  747,  811 

Howe,  Oewitt  C 12,  92,  141,  207,  493,  504,  543,  590,  626,  639,  659 

675,  707,  712,  747,  763,  811 

Hubbard,  Eugene  C 12,  373,  410,  492,  504,  524,  589,  639,  675 

689,  708,  746,  770,  813 
Hunt,  Nathan  P 13,  92,  504,  708,  747,  811 

Ide,  Daniel 15,  207,  492,  504,  590,  640,  709,  746 


INDEX.  931 

Ingalls,  Horace  L 12,  492,  504,  589,  640,  673,  708,  747,  800,  811 

Irwin,  Fred  T 13,  504,  590,  639,  675,  708,  748,  811 

Jackson,  Harry  B 22,  24,  800,  802 

Jackson,  James  R 19 

Jennings,  Henry 13,  504,  589,  639,  675,  707,  748,  813 

Jewell,  Benjamin  R 9,  491,  504,  589,  640,  674,  708,  746,  812 

Jewell,  Edward  M 16,  493,  504,  590,  640,  674,  707,  747,  812 

Jewett,  Stephen  S 6,  8,  10,  20,  21,  23,  83,  90,  268,  295,  504,  527 

528,  589,  639.  644,  673,  678,  680 
704,  706,  709,  747,  782,  796,  811 

Johnson,  George  W 31,  800,  802 

Johnson,  Thomas  F 17,  20,  93,  504,  548,  590,  640,  684,  707,  747,  776 

Jones,  Edwin  F 13,  18,  78,  92,  181,  182,  196,  286,  352,  420 

458,  459,  489,  491,  493,  504,  525 

589,  592,  634,  639,  650,  674,  707 

709,  718,  747,  751,  797,  811,  814 

Jordan,  John 12,  504,  639,  675,  707,  746,  728,  813 

Keeler,  J.  E 801 

Kelsey,  James  H 9,  491,  504,  638,  673,  708,  746,  811 

Kelsey,  John  M 8,  491,  504,  638,  673,  706,  746,  812 

Kent,  Henry  O I*,  17,  30,  31,  37,  73,  88,  129,  142,  155,  156,  157,  199 

323,  398,  440,  462,  491,  492,  504,  522 
547,  583,  590,  608,  640,  660,  674,  679 
684,  707,  719,  768,  769,  799,  812,  822 

Kidder,  Daniel 16,  37,  504,  590,  640,  675,  707,  747,  812 

Kimball,  Benjamin  A 6,  12,  31,  90,  504,  589,  639,  673,  708,  747,  811 

Kimball,  Charles  H 12,  492,  504,  552,  589,  639,  674,  708,  746,  811 

Kimball,  Eugene  F 8,  491,  504,  588,  638,  674,  707,  745,  812 

Kiniry,  William  H 15,  504,  639,  674,  708,  748 

Knight,  Carl  E 14,  140,  207,  499,  504,  639,  675,  708,  748 

Knowles,  Charles  H 8,  505,  588,  638,  706,  745 

Knox,  James'E 11,  505,  589,  640,  708,  747,  811 

Lambert,  Elliot  C 13,  178,  453,  493,  505,  515,  589,  674,  707,  747,  811 

Lamprey,  George  W 16,  505,  590,  640,  674,  707,  747,  812 

Lamprey,  Maitland  C 6,  12,  18,  32,  98,  141,  142,  157,  171,  172,  207 

294,  295,  296,  301,  358,  4 17,  470 
487,  488,  489,  492,  505,  553,  589 
632,  640,  673,  700,  708,  747,  813 

Lang,  Frank  A 12,  493,  498,  505,  589,  639,  707,  746,  811 

Laplante,  Louis  M 17,  91,  493,  505,  644,  748 

Law,  John  K 22,  800,  802 

Leach,  Edward  G 12,  19,  92,  130,  165,  168,  169,  170,  179,  264,  274 

349,  447,  448,  449,  452,  457,  493 
505,  529,  538,  589,  639,  673,  695 
707,  747,  752,  754,  810,  811,  849 


932    JOURNAL  or  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Learned,  Henry  D 14,  493,  505,  590,  639,  674,  707,  812 

Leary,  Michael  J 10,  492,  505,  638,  673,  706,  747,  812 

Leddy,  John .8,  491,  505,  588,  638,  707,  746,  811 

Ledoux,  Henri  T 14,  264,  265,  505,  590,  640,  675,  707,  748,  799,  81* 

Leighton,  Fred 801 

Leighton,  George  1 9,  18,  207,  505,  706,  747,  811 

Lewis,  Edwin  C 6,  10,  19,  31,  92,  505,  639,  708,  747,  812 

Libby,  Joseph 10,  492,  505,  638,  706,  746 

Little,  Cyrus  H 13,  18,  20,  23,  89,  91,  141,  182,  196,  297,  298,  338 

360,  362,  371,  372,  400,  419,  420,  492 
505,  589,  601,  602,  603,  629,  640,  651 
674,  684,  691,  708,  747,  763,  805,  811 

Littlefield,  John  C 13,  505,  590,  639,  675,  748,  811 

Locke,  Alphonso  B 9,  19,  505,  673,  811 

Locke,  James  A 10,  505,  638,  811 

Locke,  John  W 9,  491,  505,  589,  638,  708,  811 

Lockhart,  Burton  W 22,  800,  802 

Lord,  Harry  T 13,  22,  82,  84,  141,  142,  455,  493,  505,  639,  675 

707,  729,  747,  811 

Lovejoy,  W.  W 22,  800,  802 

Lowry,  J.  W 800 

Lyford,  James  O 11,  29,  32,  36,  40,  75,  76,  77,  78,  79,  80,  82,  84,  86 

90,  105,  124,  131,  133,  168,  182,  183,  186,  187 
189,  191,  195,  272,  315,  358,  359,  360,  361,  378 
397,  489,  490,  492,  494,  505,  514,  515,  518,  519 
520,  526,  553,  589,  591,  593,  594,  597,  640,  644 
650,  690,  702,  708,  741,  715,  747,  764,  783,  811 

Mace,  F.  P 801 

Madden,  Joseph 7,  15,  20,  30,  90,  180,  203,  335,  505,  521,  590 

639,  675,  680,  746,  751,  763 

Madigan,  Thomas  H.,  Jr 19,  800,  802,  823 

Manchester  Union 801 

Marsh,  Jonathan 13,  505,  589,  639,  675,  707,  746,  811 

McAllister,  George  1 13,  21,  129,  141,  375,  459,  505,  590,  599,  608 

639,  674,  707,  748,  762,  813 

McClure,  Cummings  B 15,  493,  505,  590,  639,  675,  707,  746,  813 

McDonough,  Joseph  M 13,  505,  589,  707,  747 

McElroy,  William 13,  492,  505,  589,  590,  639,  675,  707,  708,  747 

748,  811 

McGlynn,  Michael 14,  505,  748,  812 

McKay,  William  J 14,  505,  590,  674,  708,  748 

McKellips,  George  W 17,  207,  492,  505,  590,  640,  675,  709,  748,  812 

McQuade,  E.  A 801 

McQuestion,  John  K 13,  492,  505,  590,  708,  748 

Meader,  Stephen  C 10,  90,  491,  505,  589,  638,  708,  747,  811 

Melvin,  George 16,  207,  492,  505,  590,  640,  674,  709,  747,  812 


INDEX.  933 

Merrow,  Arthur  P 11,  19,  21,  491,  505,  589,  639,  675,  708,  746,  811 

Meserve,  Jonathan 11,  491,  505,  589,  639,  675,  708,  746,  811 

Messer,  George  J 12,  505,  589,  639,  675,  707,  746,  813 

Miles,  Charles  S 17,  492,  506,  590,  640,  709,  747,  812 

Miller,  George  E 12,  207,  506,  707,  747,  811 

Mitchell,  Abraham  M 15,  91,  174,  329,  331,  492,  506 

590,  646,  650,  708,  746 

Mitchell,  John  M 11,  90,  246,  267,  268,  269,  273,  274,  493,  506,  518 

524,  550,  589,  594,  595,  598,  599,  625,  626 
639,  644,  662,  673,  706,  714,  747,  804,  811 

Moffett,  John  D 17,  506,  590,  640,  674,  707,  748,  812 

Moore,  James  D 10,  491,  506,  589,  638,  673,  706,  746,  811 

Morang,  Charles  H 6,  9,  491,  506,  589,  638,  708,  747,  811 

Morin,  Oliver 10,  506,  638,  706,  747,  812 

Morrell,  Frank  R 8,  506 

Morrell,  Henry  H 16,  493,  506,  590,  674,  707,  747,  812 

Mori-ill,  James  R 10,  492,  506,  589,  639,  674,  706,  746 

Morrill,  Joel  E 11,  20,  491,  506,  589,  639,  675,  708,  746,  811 

Morris,  George  F 16,  90,  95,  492,  506,  519,  544,  590 

616,  640,  674,  675,  709,  748,  812 

Morrison,  Charles  E 9,  506,  638,  674,  708,  709,  747,  748,  812 

Morrison,  John  D 11,  491,  506,  589,  639,  708,  746,  748,  811,  812 

Morrison,  Mortier  L 14,  492,  506,  590,  639,  708,  748,  812 

Morrison,  Susan  R 801 

Morse,  Harry  M 16,  493,  506,  590,  640,  674,  707,  748 

Moulton,  Charles  T 9,  19,  92,  506,  708,  747 

Murcb,  Merville  B 11,  491,  506,  589,  639,  673,  708,  746,  811 

Murphy,  Patrick  W 9,  506,  708,  747,  812 

Murray,  Charles  A 17,  506,  590,  640,  674,  707,  748,  812 

Nason,  E.  M 800 

Nealley,  John  H 9,  207,  506,  589,  638,  673,  706,  747,  811 

Nettle,  Albert  13,  506,  708,  748 

Newell,  Hiram  F...15,  92,  241,  492,  506,  590,  639,  674,  708,  748,  812,  838 

Newton,  Charles  A 15,  492,  506,  590,  640,  709,  746,  813 

Nickerson,  Archie 11,  491,  506,  589,  640,  G75,  708,  746,  812 

Niles,  Edward  C 12,  78,  92,  93,  101,  182,  184,  186,  187,  190,  191 

192,  475,  492,  506,  511,  512,  513,  514,  589,  600 
603,  606,  640,  655,  666,  670,  675,  708,  757,  813 

Norris,  True  L 6,  9,  19,  92,  249,  491,  506,  522,  523,  554,  588 

589,  638,  673,  684,  708,  747,  807,  811 

Noyes,  Loren  A 15,  492,  506,  590,  709,  746,  812 

Nute,  Andrew  R 10,  491,  506,  589,  638,  674,  708,  746 

Nute,  John  H 9,  92,  491,  506,  589,  638,  673,  706,  747,  811 

Nutter,  George  W 6,  10,  142,  506,  638,  708,  746,  812 

Nutter,  Henry  C 10,  491,  506,  589,  638,  673,  746 

Osgood,  George  W 15,  125,  139,  190,  300,  474,  506,  590 

618,  639,  647,  707,  748,  813 


934    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Page,  Horace  A 11,  491,  506,  589,  639,  746,  811 

Paige,  David  A 13,  506,  589,  639,  675,  708,  747,  813: 

Paige,  Nelson  W 13,  21,  459,  506,  590,  708,  748,  801,  811 

Paine,  William  H 17,  92,  492,  507,  523,  675,  747 

Park,  William  K.,  Jr 17,31,  507,  74T 

Parker,  Edward  E. . . 7,  14,  21,  89,  91,  447,  448,  450 

507,  639,  647,  681,  708,  748 

Parker,  Lebina  H 16,  493,  507,  590,  640,  674,  707,  746 

Parker,  Wilbur  F 16,  91,  492,  507,  590,  640,  644,  674,  709,  748,  813 

Patriot  Job  Printing  Co 801 

Paul,  Clarence  H 9,  507,  638,  706,  747,  812 

Pearson,  H.  C 801 

Peaslee,  Daniel  M 9,  507,  589,  638,  706,  747,  811 

Peavey,  George  S.  ...13,  91,  493,  507,  528,  589,  639,  646,  650,  707,  746,  811 

Peirce,  George  W 15,  92,  507 

Pelren,  Harry  J 24,  800,  802 

Penniman,  Robert  R 15,  288,  507,  590,  640,  675,  707,  784,  812 

Perkins,  Napoleon  B  17,  492,  507,  590,  640,  675,  709,  748 

Phaneuf ,  J.  &  Son 801 

Philbrook,  Charles  E 17,  91,  492,  507,  590,  640,  644,  674,  709,  748 

Phipps,  Leonard  K 17,  507,  590,  640,  707,  747,  812 

Pike,  Edwin  B 16,  92,  348,  455,  461,  467,  492 

507,  551,  590,  709,  722,  747 

Pike,  William  T 17,  142,  420,  493,  ,507,  590,  640,  675,  707,  709,  747 

Pillsbury,  Rosecrans  W 9,  18,  19,  22,  201,  202,  322,  359,  360 

468,  482,  484,  491,  492,  493,  507 
533,  538,  539,  589,  591,  592,  696 
702,  706,  738,  740,  747,  811,  821 

Piper,  M.  L 800,  802 

Plante,  Joseph  G 13,  87,  507,  707,  748,  811 

Plummer,  Bard  B 10,  507 

Pollard,  Christopher  A 9,  491,  507,  589,  638,  708,  746,  777,  812 

Poole,  Joel  H 14,  492,  507,  590,  639,  674,  708,  748 

Powers,  Edward  J 13,  492,  507,  590,  639,  674,  708,  748,  811 

Powers,  Marcellus  J 13,  492,  507,  639,  708,  746,  778,  811 

Precourt,  Albert  J 13,  507,  589,  639,  674,  707,  748,  811 

Pressler,  Adolph  W 15,  18,  20,  22,  451,  507,  812 

Proctor,  Clayton  B 14,  507,  590,  639,  674,  707,  748,  811 

Provost,  Frank  T 13,  507,  590,  639,  674,  707,  748,  813 

Pulsifer,  Charles  L 10,  207,  507,  640,  706,  747,  812 

Pulsifer,  Charles  W 16,  493,  507,  590,  674,  707,  747 

Putnam,  George  M 12,  492,  507,  589,  639,  675,  708,  746,  813 

Quimby,  Mary  E 35 

Quirin,  Eugene 13,  87,  507,  590,  639,  674,  707,  748- 

Quirin,  Joseph 13,  91,  493,  507,  639,  644,  674,  707,  748,  811 

Raymond,  Charles  H 14,  493,  507,  590,  639,  675,  707,  746,  *11 


INDEX.  935 

Reed,  George  H 89,  801 

Reed,  Thomas  B 206 

Rich,  George  F .17,  21,  493,  507,  590,  640,  674,  707,  748 

Richards,  Seth  M 15,  93,  507,  540,  590 

Richardson,  Milton  A 14,  507,  590,  674,  707,  748,  812 

Richardson,  Warren  B.  .16,  91,  493,  507,  590,  639,  644,  674,  707,  748,  812 

Richer,   Joseph 13,  87,  507,  590,  639,  707,  748,  81 1 

Rideout,  Henry  M 11,  92,  508,  589,  639,  673,  708,  746 

Riley,  Philip 21 

Ripley,  Leon  D 17,  207,  508,  748,  812 

Roberts,  C.  L 800,  802 

Roberts,  William  H 9,  21,  508,  589,  638,  674,  707,  747,  812 

Robinson,  A.  H 801 

Robinson,  Edwin  R 13,  508,  589,  639,  674,  707,  747,  811 

de  Rochemont,  Frederic  W 9,  508,  589,  638,  674,  708,  746,  812 

Rogers,  Charles  C 11,  90,  178,  268,  335,  430,  491,  508,  559 

589,  600,  609,  674,  706,  746,  812,  822 

Rose,  Clarence  E 13,  492,  508,  589,  674,  708,  747,  811 

Rossiter,  George  P 15,  492,  508,  590,  640,  674,  708,  748,  813 

Rotch,  William  B 14,  92,  508,  639,  675,  708,  748,  813 

Roy,  Clement 10,  508,  638,  706,  747,  812 

Rugg,  Daniel  W 15,  91,  492,  508,  639,  646,  650,  708,  746 

Rumford  Printing  Co 801 

Runnells,  Frederic  D 14,  492,  508,  590,  639,  674,  708,  748,  811 

Russell,  Frank  W.  .16,  92,  241,  492,  508,  590,  609,  610,  675,  709,  748,  813 

Sanborn,  Edward  B.  S 3,  12,  90,  508,  639,  640,  675,  679 

707,  709,  716,  748,  811,  813 

Sanborn,  Henry  C 8,  492,  493,  508,  588,  638,  674,  707,  745,  812 

Sanborn,  Jeremy  L 11,  508,  589,  639,  708,  746 

Sanborn,  John  C 8,  491,  508,  588,  638,  674,  707,  746,  811 

Sanborn,  John  W 7,  8,  11,  31,  89,  90,  267,  492,  508,  589 

639,  644,  673,  706,  747,  784,  811 

Sanders,  Walter  R 8,  92,  454,  492,  508,  707,  734,  747,  811 

Sawyer,  Edward  N 12,  493,  508,  639,  813 

Sawyer,  Horace 9,  491,  508,  589,  674,  708,  747,  812 

Scott,  Charles 14,  98,  151,  155,  177,  284,  286,  430,  442,  447 

455,  492,  508,  590.  639,  650,  674 
707,  720,  746,  774,  799,  812,  827 

Seavey,  Charles  L 14,  493,  508,  590,  639,  675,  707,  746,  813 

Shaw,  Weare  N 9,  30,  404,  491,  508,  589,  593,  674,  707,  746,  812 

Shedd,  Albert 14,  493,  508,  590,  639,  674,  707,  748,  811 

Shurtleff,  Fremont  E 23,  30,  800 

Shute,  Calvin  T 7,  17,  92,  295,  361,  447,  508,  590,  640,  674,  707,  747 

Simons,  George 14,  492,  508,  590,  639,  675,  708,  746,  812 

Slattery,  Joseph  T 14,  508,  590,  639,  707,  748,  812 

Sloane,  Scott 16,  18,  96,  97,  192,  447,  493,  508 

590,  640,  674,  707,  748,  812 


936     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Smith,  George  F 10,  491,  508,  589,  639,  674,  708,  746,  812 

Smith,  John  B 13,  91,  296,  395,  493,  508,  542,  589,  639,  707,  731,  747 

Smith,  Kendrick  W 10,  92,  169,  445,  446,  491,  508 

589,  639,  673,  708,  748,  811 

Spaulding,  Frank  A 15,  92,  508,  590,  639,  674,  707,  748,  812 

Spencer,  William 11,  508,  589,  639,  673,  708,  746,  811 

Spring,  John  R 14,  21,  493,  508,  639,  674,  707,  709,  748,  811 

Springfield,  George  H 10,  491,  493,  508,  673,  708,  746,  811 

Starr,  William  J 13,  20,  242,  243,  296,  304,  451,  485,  493 

508,  589,  639,  675,  698,  707,  748,  813 

Stearns,  Willis  D 14,  509,  812 

Stockwell,  George  T 15,  23,  24,  371,  509,  590,  640 

708,  748,  717,  771,  813 

Stoddard,  Willard  A 16,  493,  509,  747 

Stone,  George  C 24,  800,  802 

Stone,  George  R 12,  419,  509,  536,  589,  639,  688,  708,  747,  811 

Stone,  George  W 6,  11,  162,  264,  376,  420,  449,  492,  509,  534 

538,  549,  550,  589,  599,  622,  639 
681,  708,  717,  735,  747,  797,  811 

Stone,  Melvin  T 15,  90,  493,  509,  707,  748,  812 

Streeter,  Frank  S 11,  18,  76,  77,  509 

Sullivan,  Michael  R. . .  .13,  451,  493,  509,  589,  639,  675,  707,  748,  813,  822 

Taft,  James  S 15,  21,  91,  509,  708,  748,  812 

Tarbell,  Walter  S 13,  493,  509,  589,  639,  675,  707,  746,  811 

Tenney,  Edward  J 15,  20,  91,  509,  590,  640,  674,  707,  748,  812 

Thompson,  Arthur 12,  35,  93,  95,  336,  460,  461,  462,  468 

492,  509,  589,  640,  708,  747,  811 

Thompson,  Edwin  P 10,  91,  492,  509,  589,  673,  706,  747,  811 

Thorpe,  L.  Ashton 22,  800,  802 

Thurston,  Remember  B 17,  509,  707,  747,  813 

Titus,  Charles  C 17,  492,  509,  590,  640,  674,  709,  747,  812 

Todd,  Jacob  H 12,  509,  589,  673,  707,  746,  811 

Tonery,  Michael 13,  509,  589,  707,  748 

Torr,  Charles  W 22,  800,  802 

Towle,  John  W 8,  492,  509,  589,  638,  746,  812 

Towne,  Omar  A 12,  509,  589,  639,  673,  708,  747,  811 

Tremblay,  Joseph  O 13,  509,  589,  639,  674,  707,  747,  811 

Trinity,  Joseph  F 13,  493,  509,  590,  639,  675,  707,  748,  813 

Truesdell,  Edmund  E 12,  90,  493,  509,  514,  639,  644,  682,  707,  747 

Virgin,  Fales  P 11,  493,  509,  639,  673,  706,  746,  811 

Walker,  John 9,  207,  509,  638,  708,  746,  811 

Walker,  Joseph  E 16,  493,  509,  590,  640,  707,  747,  812 

Walker,  Reuben  E 12,  91,  337,  493,  509,  589,  640,  673,  707,  747,  811 

Ward,  Edwin  D 10,  21,  31,  509,  706 

Ward,  Simon 16,  493,  509,  590,  640,  674,  707,  748,  812 


INDEX.  937 

Warden,  Alexander 16,  492,  509,  590,  640,  674,  709,  747,  813 

Warner,  Franklin  G 12,  204,  509,  522 

Wason,  Edward  H 14,  23,  92,  444,  451,  488,  492,  509,  545,  547 

590,  629,  639,  675,  708,  722,  748,  811 

Watson,  Laban  M 17,  492,  509,  709,  748,  812 

Way,  Osman  B 15,  91,  509 

Weare,  Benjamin  F 8,  491,  509,  589,  638,  707,  746,  812 

Webb,  John  W 10,  509,  638,  674,  706,  746,  811 

Webster,  Edward  K 12,  493,  499,  509,  589,  746,  811 

Wentworth,  Alvin  F 16,  20,  21,  292,  493,  509,  590 

636,  675,  707,  748,  813 

Westgate,  Tyler 16,  91,  510,  674,  707,  748,  812 

Wetherell,  Albert  S 8,  92,  337,  510,  588,  638,  673,  706,  746,  811 

Wheeler,  Benjamin  R 9,  491,  510,  640,  708,  747,  811 

Whitaker,  Hermon 13,  492,  510,  590,  708,  746,  811 

Whitaker,  William  F 13,  493,  510,  589,  639,  675,  707,  746,  811 

Whittier,  Moses  T 12,  510,  640,  673,  747,  811 

Wight,  Adam  W 17,  510,  590,  640,  674,  709,  747,  812 

Wight,  Joseph  H 17,  92,  510,  674,  709,  748,  812 

Wilkins,  Charles  A 12,  142,  510,  639,  707,  747,  773,  813 

Wilkinson,  Rufus 13,  492,  510,  589,  639,  674,  747,  811 

Willson,  Edward  T 10,  491,  510,  589,  708,  746,  811 

Wilson,  Royal  L 12,  510,  589,  639,  675,  708,  746,  811 

Wingate,  Joseph  C.  A.  .9,  71,  75,  79,  80,  84,  85,  86,  98,  190,  200,  265,  275 
410,  411,  510,  589,  638,  673,  706,  746,  756,  812 

Woodbury,  Arthur  K 14,  493,  510,  590,  639,  674,  748,  811 

Woodbury,  Elmer  E 17,  33,  91,  103,  338,  492,  510,  523,  590 

640,  646,  650,  709,  725,  747,  856 

Woodbury,  Gordon 12,  90,  289,  377,  378,  510,  670 

675,  703,  708,  746,  811 

Woolson,  Augustus  A 16,  20,  487,  492,  510,  640,  674,  709,  747 

Woodward,  Clement  J 15,  92,  510,  639,  674,  707,  748.  812 

Worcester,  George  A 14,  240,  492,  510,  590,  639,  708,  748^  813 

Wright,  Charles,  2d 15,  207,  510,  674,  708,  748,  812 

Wyatt,  Otis  C 12,  492,  510,  640,  708,  746,  811 

Young,  Charles  A . . . , 16,  509,  510,  590,  640,  675,  747 

Young,  Willis  E .17,  493,  510,  812 


INDEX  OF  SUBJECTS. 


Adjournment,  resolutions  relating  to 593,  749,  799 

final 823 

Amendment  to  woman's  suffrage  resolution 462 

Amendments  proposed,  when  to  submit  to  people 804 

Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Department,  committee  appointed. .     90 

Chairman,  temporary 3 

address  by 3 

Chaplain,  appointment  of 22 

president  to  supply 89 

Colby,  James  F.,  tendered  thanks  of  Convention 804 

Committee  on  Assignment  of  Rooms,  resolution  creating 141 

appointment  of 142 

report  of 178 

Committee  on  Bill  of  Rights  and  Executive  Department,  appoint- 
ment of 90 

Committee  on  Credentials,  resolution  creating 6 

report  of 8 

Committee  on  Finance,  resolution  creating 178 

appointment  of 207 

report 781*799 

Committee  on  Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution  and 

Other  Proposed  Amendments,  appointment  of 91 

Committee  on  Judicial  Department,  appointment  of 91 

Committee  on  Legislative  Department,  appointment  of. 90 

Committee  on  Mileage,  resolution  creating 141 

appointment  of 206 

report  of 499 

Committee  on  Permanent  Organization,  resolution  creating 19 

appointment  of 19 

report  of 22 

Committee   to  consider  petition  of  Felix   G.   Harbor    et    als., 

appointment  of 21 

report  of 87 

Committee  to  conduct  president-elect  to  the  chair 18 

Committee  on  Publishing  the  Report  of  the  Proceedings  of  the 

Convention,  resolution  creating 651 

appointment  of 70& 

report  of 802 


940    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Committee  on  Rules,  resolution  creating 20 

appointment  of 20 

president  added 23 

report  of 24 

adopted 30 

Committee  on  Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the 
Amendments  Agreed  to  by  the  Convention,  appointment  of. .     92 

report  of 766,  813 

adopted..  822 

Committee  to  Consider  Ward  Ten,  Manchester,  Contest,  appoint- 
ment of    21 
report  of    88 

Committee  of  the  Whole 40-86,  103-140,  142-177,  182-196 

268-295,  297-331,  338-360,  362- 

371,  372-390,  400-419,  420-458 

462-490,  494-498,  553-588,  684- 

690,  751-763 

Communication  from  State  Treasurer I 390 

Concord  Evening  Monitor,  resolution  authorizing  purchase  of 20 

Constitutional  Conventions,  resolutions  relating  to 243,  296,  333 

discussion  on 626 

roll-call 638 

report  inexpedient 641 

Constitution,  resolution  relating  to  future  amendments 32 

of  New  Hampshire 881 

Contest,  Ward  Ten,  Manchester,  resolution  in  favor  of  Nelson  W. 

Paige 459 

Convention,  hours  for  assembling 23 

president  of 18 

ballot  for 18 

secretary  of • 19 

ballot  for 19 

Council,  resolution  relating  to 335 

report  inexpedient 609 

County  Solicitors,  resolution  relating  to 93 

new  draft 337 

discussion 792 

laid  on  table 799 

Courts,  Police,  resolution  to  extend  jurisdiction — 95 

new  draft 518 

discussion 675 

adopted 677 

Courts,  Supreme  and  Superior,  resolutions  relating  to 101,  264 

discussion 601,  651 

report 670 

indefinitely  postponed  717 

Credentials,  Committee  on,  resolution  creating 6 

report  of 8 


INDEX.  941 

Debate,  resolution  limiting,  adopted 608 

District  System,  proposition  to  determine 181 

report  favoring 644 

Doorkeepers,  appointment  of 22 

Educational  Test,  resolution  relating  to 7& 

adopted 514 

Electing  Certain  State  Officers  by  the  People,  resolution  relating 

to 332 

indefinitely  postponed  718 

Electors,  resolution  relating  to  privileges  of 336 

report  inexpedient 782 

Estates  of  Deceased  Persons,  resolution  to  tax 32 

report  inexpedient 460 

Exempting  Property  from  Taxation,  resolution  relating  to 264 

discussion 528 

report  inexpedient 553 

Final  Adjournment 823 

resolutions  relating  to 593,  749,  799 

Finance,  discussion  on 391 

Finance  Committee,  resolution  creating 178 

appointment  of 207 

report 781,  799 

Free  Passes,  memorandum  concerning  the  prohibition  of  on  rail- 
roads    230 

resolutions  relating  to 101,  102,  243,  335 

discussion 681,  684,  751,  765,  808 

roll-call 811 

resolution  to  refer  to  legislature 752 

Future  Constitutional  Conventions,  resolutions  relating  to.243,  296,  333 

discussion 626 

roll-call 638 

report  inexpedient  641 

Future  Mode  of  Amending  the  Constitution,  and  Other  Proposed 
Amendments,  committee  appointed 91 

Governor,  Lieutenant,  resolution  creating  office 266 

report  inexpedient 609 

Governor's  Council,  resolution  relating  to 335 

report  inexpedient 609 

Governor's  Proclamation 880 

Governor's  Title,  resolution  relating  to 179 

report  inexpedient 523 

"  His  Excellency,"  resolution  relating  to 179 

report  inexpedient 523 

House  of  Representatives,  proposition  to  determine  size 181 


942    JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Incompatibility  of  Certain  Officers,  resolution  relating  to 237 

report 371 

indefinitely  postponed  764 

Inheritance  Tax,  resolution  relating  to 250 

report  inexpedient 594 

Initiative  and  Keferendum,  resolutions  relating  to 204,  264 

discussion 606,784 

indefinitely  postponed. 764,  799 
laid  on  table 792 

Judicial  Department,  committee  appointed 91 

Legislation,  Special,  resolution  prohibiting 244 

discussion 516 

report  inexpedient 682 

Legislative  Department,  committee  appointed 90 

Lieutenant-Governor,  resolution  creating  office 266 

report  inexpedient 609 

"  Male,"  resolution  to  strike  out  of  constitution 93 

Manchester  Union,  resolution  authorizing  purchase  of 20 

Members  of  the  Convention,  resolution  relating  to  pay 521 

Memorandum  concerning  the  prohibition  of  free  passes  on  rail- 
roads   230 

trusts  and  monop- 
olies   223 

Method  of  procedure,  discussion  on 74 

Mileage  Committee,  resolution  creating 141 

appointment  of 206 

report  of 499 

Militia,  resolution  relating  to 241 

adopted 609 

Official  stenographer,  appointment  of 23 

oath  of  office 30 

Organic  Law  Development,  review  of 208 

Organization,  temporary 3 

Pages,  appointment  of 24 

Passes,   Free,   memorandum   concerning  the  prohibition   of    on 

railroads 230 

resolutions  relating  to 101,  102,  243,  335 

discussion 681,  684,  751,  765,  808 

roll-call 811 

resolution  to  refer  to  legislature 752 

Patriot,  The  Daily,  permission  to  distribute 30 

Pensions,  resolution  relating  to 331 

adopted 594 


INDEX.  943 

Pensions,  resolution  reconsidered  and  laid  on  table 719 

People  and  Patriot  Co.,  communication  from 30 

Petition  of  Felix  G.  Harbor  et  als.t  presented 7 

committee  to  consider 21 

report  of 87 

Plurality  to  elect,  resolution  relating  to 32 

discussion 524 

indefinitely  postponed 678 

Police  Courts,  resolution  to  extend  jurisdiction 95 

new  draft 518 

discussion 675 

adopted 677 

Polls  and  Estates,  taxation  of 249 

Popular  vote  to  elect  certain  state  officials 243,  332 

discussion ,  523 

roll-call 673 

report  inexpedient 675 

President,  ballot  for 18 

address  by 18 

tendered  thanks  of  Convention 805 

address  by 807 

Press,  resolution  tendering  thanks  of  Convention  to 823 

Privileges  of  an  elector,  resolution  relating  to 336 

report  inexpedient 782 

Proceedings,  first  day 3-22 

second  day 23-88 

third  day 89-177 

fourth  day 178-205 

fifth  day,  no  session, 
sixth  day,  no  session. 

seventh  day 206-248 

eighth  day 249-336 

ninth  day 337-419 

tenth  day 420-497 

eleventh  day 498-520 

twelfth  day,  no  session, 
thirteenth  day,  no  session, 
fourteenth  day,  no  session. 

fifteenth  day 521-607 

sixteenth  day 608-683 

seventeenth  day 684-783 

eighteenth  day 784-823 

Proclamation  by  governor 880 

Proposed  Amendments,  when  to  submit  to  people 804 

Questions  submitted  to  qualified  voters 863 

vote  on..,  .  866 


944     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Heed,  Thomas  B.,  resolutions  adopted 20$ 

Religious  clause  in  Constitution,  resolutions  relating  to 38,  93,  238 

discussion.  .39,  182,  511,  613 

adopted  new  draft 625- 

Representation,  resolutions  relating  to 33,  36,  38,  86,  95,  98,  99,  178 

179,  180,  203,  207,  240,  241 
246,  247,  297 

discussion 103,  142,  181,  196,  268,  297 

338,  372,  396,  420,  719 

majority  report 641 

minority  report 646 

report  for  district  system 644 

roll-call 745 

Resolutions  relating  to  adjournment,  final 593,  749,  799,  823 

Resolution  to  amend  Art.  32,  Part  2,  of  the  Constitution 98 

report  inexpedient 267 

Resolution  to  amend  Art.  6,  Bill  of  Rights 38,  93,  238 

Resolution  creating  Committee  on  Assignment  of  Rooms 141 

appointment  of 142 

report  of 178 

Resolution  creating  Committee  on  Credentials 6 

report  of 8 

Resolution  creating  Committee  on  Finance 178 

appointment  of 207 

report 781,  799 

Resolution  creating  Committee  on  Mileage 141 

appointment  of 206 

report  of 499 

Resolution  creating  Committee  on  Permanent  Organization 19 

appointment  of ....     19 

report  of 22 

Resolution  creating  Committee  on  Rules 20 

appointment  of 20 

president  added 23 

report  of 24 

adopted 30 

Resolution  creating  Committee  to  publish  the  report  of  the  Pro- 
ceedings of  the  Convention 651 

appointment  of 709 

report  of 802 

Resolution  creating  Committee  to  consider  Ward  Ten,  Manches- 
ter, contest 21 

report  of 88 

Resolution  relating  to  Constitutional  Conventions 243,  296,  333 

discussion 626 

roll-call 638 

report  inexpedient. ...  641 


INDEX.  945 

Resolution  to  extend  jurisdiction  of  Police  Courts 95 

new  draft 518 

discussion 675 

adopted 677 

Resolution  relating  to  Supreme  and  Superior  Courts 101,  264 

discussion 601,  651 

report 670 

indefinitely  postponed  717 

Resolution  on  death  of  Hon.  Thomas  B.  Reed 206 

Resolution  limiting  debate  adopted 608 

Resolution  relating  to  educational  test 75 

adopted 514 

Resolution  to  elect  certain  state  officers  by  the  people 332 

indefinitely  postponed  718 

Resolution!relating  to  privileges  of  an  elector 336 

report  inexpedient..  782 

Resolution  to  tax  estates  of  deceased  persons 32 

report  inexpedient. .  460 

Resolution  relating  to  exempting  property  from  taxation 264 

discussion 528 

report  inexpedient  553 

Resolution  relating  to  governor's  council 335 

report  inexpedient. . . 609 

Resolution  creating  office  of  lieutenant-governor 266 

report  inexpedient  609 

Resolution  relating  to  governor's  title 179 

report  inexpedient 523 

Resolution  relating  to  incompatibility  of  certain  officers 237 

report v  371 

indefinitely  postponed  764 

Resolution  relating  to  inheritance  tax 25ft 

report  inexpedient 594 

Resolution  relating  to  initiative  and  referendum 204,  264 

discussion 606,  784 

indefinitely  postponed  764,  799 

laid  on  table 792 

Resolution  relating  to  special  legislation 244 

discussion 576 

report  inexpedient 682 

Resolution  to  print  alphabetical  list  of  members 23 

relating  to  pay  of  members 521 

Resolution  relating  to  militia 241 

adopted 609 

Resolution  relating  to  free  passes  on  railroad 101,  102,  243,  335 

discussion  681,  684,  751,  765,  808 

roll-call 811 

to  refer  to  legislature 752. 

60 


946     JOURNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

Resolution  in  favor  of  Nelson  W.  Paige 459 

Resolution  relating  to  pensions 331 

adopted 594 

reconsidered  and  laid  on  table 719 

Resolution  authorizing  president  to  appoint  certain  convention 

officials 20 

Resolution  authorizing  the  printing  of  the  following: 

Review  of  Organic  Law  Development 208 

Memorandum  on  Free  Passes  on  Railroads  208 
Memorandum  on  Trusts  and  Monopolies  . .  208 

Resolutions  relating  to  representation 33,  36,  38,  86,  95,  98,  99,  178 

179,  180,  203,  207,  240,  241 
246,  247,  297 

Resolution  authorizing  printing  of  tables 141 

Resolution  of  thanks  to  James  F.  Colby 804 

officers  and  employees 813 

representatives  of  the  press 823 

Frank  S.  Streeter 805 

Resolution  relating  to  drawing  of  seats 21,  30 

Resolution,  secretary  of  state  to  furnish  copies  of  the  Journal  of  1889      7 

Resolution  relating  to  size  of  senate .94,  96,  265,  266 

discussion 719 

report  inexpedient 750 

Resolution  relating  to  sheriffs 97 

adopted 296 

Resolution  relating  to  county  solicitors 93 

new  draft 337 

discussion 792 

laid  on  table 799 

Resolution  relating  to  standard  of  value 240,  332 

report  inexpedient 522 

Resolution  relating  to  word  "  subject " 86 

report  inexpedient 613 

Resolutions  relating  to  trusts 37,  239,  242,  265 

discussion 494,  553,  678,  679,  709 

roll-call 588 

Resolution  relating  to  voting  precincts 33 

adopted 267 

recommitted 717 

adopted,  new  draft 764 

Resolution,  highest  number  votes  sufficient 32 

discussion . . . '. 524 

indefinitely  postponed  678 

Resolution  to  elect  by  popular  vote 243,  332 

discussion 523 

roll-call 673 

report  inexpedient 675 


INDEX.  947 

Resolution  relating  to  woman's  suffrage 93 

discussion 460,  591,  691 

roll-call 491 

reconsideration  706 

notice  to  reconsider 493 

resolution  to  amend.. . .  462 

Review  of  Organic  Law  Development 208 

Roll-call,  Constitutional  Conventions,  future 638 

electing  certain  state  officers 673 

substituting  minority  for  majority  report  on  represent- 
ation   745 

free  passes  on  railroads 811 

trusts 588 

woman's  suffrage 491 

reconsideration 706 

Rules,  resolution  creating  committee '.    20 

appointment  of 20 

president  added 23 

report  of 24 

adopted 30 

to  print  and  distribute  copies 31 

Seats,  resolution  relating  to  drawing 21,  30 

Secretary,  temporary 6 

ballot  for 19 

oath  of  office 12 

assistant,  appointment  of 82 

Secretary  of  State 7 

Sergeant-at-Arms,  appointment  of 22 

Senate,  resolutions  relating  to  size  of 94,  96,  265,  266 

discussion 719 

report  inexpedient 750 

Sheriffs,  resolution  relating  to 97 

adopted 296 

Solicitors,  county,  resolution  relating  to 93 

new  draft 337 

discussion 792 

laid  on  table 799 

Special  Legislation,  resolution  prohibiting 244 

discussion 516 

report  inexpedient 682 

Standard  of  Value,  resolution  relating  to  240,  332 

report  inexpedient 522 

State  officials,  certain,  to  be  elected  by  popular  vote 243,  332 

discussion 523 

roll-call 673 

report  inexpedient  675 


"948     JOUBNAL  OF  CONSTITUTIONAL  CONVENTION. 

State  Treasurer,  communication  from 390 

Stenographer,  official,  appointment  of 23 

oath  of  office 30 

Streeter,  Frank  S.,  tendered  thanks  of  Convention 805 

^'Subject,"  resolution  relating  to 86 

report  inexpedient 613 

Sundry  information 857 

Supreme  and  Superior  Courts,  resolutions  relating  to 101,  264 

discussion 601,  651 

report 670 

indefinitely  postponed  717 

Table,  submitted  by  Mr.  Aldrich  of  Littleton 134 

submitted  by  Mr.  Baker  250,  857 

submitted  by  Mr.  Barton 853 

submitted  by  Mr.  Leach 849 

submitted  by  Mr.  Lyf ord 108 

submitted  by  Mr.  Newell 838 

submitted  by  Mr.  Scott 827 

submitted  by  Mr.  Woodbury  of  Woodstock 856 

Tables,  resolution  authorizing  printing  of 141 

Tax,  inheritance,  resolution  relating  to 250 

report  inexpedient 594 

Taxation,  exempting  property  from,  resolution  relating  to 264 

discussion 528 

report  inexpedient  553 

resolutions  relating  to 249,  250 

report  new  draft 595,  625 

accepted 625 

indefinitely  postponed 684 

Taxing  estates  of  deceased  persons,  resolutions  relating  to 32 

report  inexpedient  460 

Tellers,  to  distribute  and  collect  ballots 17 

to  sort  and  count  ballots 18,  19 

permanent,  appointment  of 141 

Time  and  Mode  of  Submitting  to  the  People  the  Amendments 

Agreed  to  by  the  Convention,  committee  appointed 92 

report  of 766,  813 

adopted 822 

Treasurer,  state,  communication  from 390 

Trusts  and  monopolies,  memorandum  concerning  prohibition  of.  223 

Trusts,  resolutions  relating  to 37,  239,  242,  265 

discussion 494,  553,  678,  679,  709 

roll-call 588 

Value,  standard  of,  resolution  relating  to 240,  332 

report  inexpedient 522 


INDEX.  949 

Vote,  popular,  to  elect  certain  state  officials 243,  332 

discussion 523 

roll-call 673 

report  inexpedient..  675 

Voters,  questions  submitted  to 863 

vote  on 866 

Votes,  highest  number  sufficient  in  all  cases 32 

Voting  precincts,  resolution  relating  to.. .   33 

adopted 267 

recommitted 717 

adopted  new  draft 764 

Ward  ten,  Manchester,  contest,  resolution  in  favor  of  Nelson  W. 

Paige 459 

Warden  of  cloak  room,  appointment  of 22 

assistant,  appointment  of 31 

Woman's  Suffrage  Association,  communication  from 35 

address  by  representatives  of 336 

Woman's  suffrage,  resolution  relating  to 93 

discussion 460,  591,  691 

roll-call 491 

reconsideration 706 

notice  to  reconsider 493 

resolution  to  amend 462 

Yeas  and  nays,  constitutional  conventions,  future 638 

election  of  certain  state  officials 673 

free  passes 811 

representation 745 

woman's  suffrage 491,  706 

trusts..  .  588 


YC  36129 


